(07-11-2022, 08:55 AM)The Real Marty Wrote:

(07-11-2022, 07:35 AM)mikesez Wrote: Term limits require a Constitutional amendment.  I used to oppose the idea, but im starting to see the benefits. 
If we could make it so 1/4 to 1/2 of all members of Congress at any given time weren't worried about getting re-elected, it might really improve things.  But Congress itself will never do it, unless the states are on the cusp of organizing an article 5 convention (as happened with the 17th amendment)
The best part is it might kick off a necessary conversation about which other amendments would be beneficial.
But no one can ever get money out of politics.

In general, I agree that term limits would be a good thing.  

But about the part in bold- could you imagine a scenario where that might backfire?

We don't have to imagine.  We see it at work at the state level.  There is an obvious loss of expertise and a loss of name recognition between the people and their representatives.  The lobbyists have more kingmaking power than they did before because of this loss of name recognition.
But on the other hand the state legislatures do more in less time than US congress does, for the last few decades this is true.  Most of the problem with US Congress seems to be that the members are afraid of getting primaried. Can't be afraid of that if you're not running again anyway.  The loss of expertise problem could be alleviated by a requirement that anyone who reaches their term limit continue attending sessions of Congress but without a vote.

---