“U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton (1995): a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that states cannot impose qualifications for prospective members of the U.S. Congress stricter than those specified in the Constitution. The decision invalidated the Congressional term limit provisions of 23 states...”
Also, during the 1994 Republican Revolution, a lot of the Republicans elected to the House had signed a pledge to serve only 3-terms (6-years). When 2000 came, many broke their pledge.
Term limits seem like a stupid idea to me. It just takes power away from the voters. It would probably lead to a younger Congress, which would almost certainly make it more liberal. It would remove in equal proportion liberal and conservative legislators, so there’s no automatic net loss to be suffered by one side. Plus there’s every likelihood any location will elect a new person of the same political stripe.
Not to mention, it’s the fear of being voted out and the incentive of being reelected that helps hold politicians’ feet to the fire. Isn’t the line about Obama that he would be more dangerous in his second term when he didn’t have to worry about being reelected? Of course. Term limits give politicians more incentive to be destructive and dangerous.
So why spend the effort pushing for term limits when there are no clear gains to be made and a removal of a good incentive in the current system? We already have the power to vote out whoever we want on election day and have shown that we can and will do it.