JOHN EICHELBERGER AND ANDY DINNIMAN
Special to the Post-Gazette
Almost three-quarters of a century ago, on Feb. 27, 1951, the United
States adopted the 22nd Amendment limiting a president to two terms in
office. We believe the nation should extend the constitutional limit from
the presidency to Congress.
For presidents, but not Congress
Term limits for presidents had been debated but not approved at the
original Constitution Convention. George Washington established the
tradition that a president served no more than two terms.
In the 1944 campaign, the Republican candidate Thomas Dewey
proposed a constitutional amendment to limit presidents to two terms,
and the idea became popular. Some states proposed a constitutional
amendment limiting the president’s term in office and many candidates
running for office advocated presidential term limits.
Responding to the popular movement in March of 1947, Congress
approved the 22nd Amendment and the state ratification process began.
Pennsylvania was the 15th state to ratify the 22nd Amendment, doing so
a month later.
Harry Truman was president when the 22nd Amendment was ratified
and was grandfathered in. He believed two terms were enough for any
occupant in the White House. He thought that since he had served all but
82 days of Roosevelt’s fourth term plus one full elected term, he had
served two terms and opted not to run again in 1952.
Just as importantly, he hoped that Congress would further act on term
limits for itself. He was an advocate of congressional term limits for the
remainder of his life.
The need for term limits
Why term limits? One piece of evidence for their value is that lobbyists,
and the special interests they represent, hate them. They don’t want to
see their co-dependent relationships with career politicians come to an
end.
Term limits make lobbyists work harder. They ensure a constant influx of
new ideas into government. Term limits force lobbyists to make
arguments on the merits, rather than rely on sentimental relationships.
As former megalobbyist and convicted felon Jack Abramoff wrote 10
years ago in his new book, “Capitol Punishment,” he opposed term limits
when he was a lobbyist, because he believed voters’ choices should not be
limited.
But he had another reason to oppose them. “Like almost every lobbyist I
knew, I didn’t want to have to build relationships with new members
constantly. A representative who stayed in office for decades, and was a
friend, was worth his weight in gold.”
He came to believe that “permitting people to rule for decades is a recipe
for disaster. Is there really a difference between a permanent Congress
and a president for life?”
A second piece of evidence is that term limits make legislators more
effective and reduce the power of the bureaucracy. New York University
scholar Mona Vakilifathi has shown that term limited legislators are
incentivized to enact more detailed legislation and to exert more control
over the process in order to ensure that their preferences will be
implemented and not left to an agency or a governor to decide.
Career politicians regularly “kick the can down the road,” knowing they’ll
remain in office. This has the effect of empowering unelected
bureaucrats, since lawmakers are less compelled to control the process
and place more trust and power in the hands of seasoned staffers and
bureaucrats.
Popular and bipartisan
Congressional term limits are now today’s most popular and bipartisan
issue. A Pew Research poll showed 87% of Americans, regardless of
political affiliation, support congressional term limits.
With over 151 members who pledged to support congressional term
limits now serving in Congress, we are seeing movement to pass
congressional term limits.
In the House, House Joint Resolution 12, sponsored by Rep. Ralph
Norman of South Carolina, has more than 50 co-sponsors. Once passed
by Congress and ratified by the states, it would limit representatives to
three terms, or six years, and Senators to two terms, or 12 years.
In the Senate, Texas Republican Ted Cruz has filed Senate Joint
Resolution 1, a companion resolution to the House’s resolution 12, which
has 15 co-sponsors. But if Congress doesn’t pass term limits, what can be
done?
Just as with the debate over presidential terms in the mid-1940s, the
states can take the initiative, calling for a convention to adopt a
congressional term limits amendment. When enough states request a
convention to add a congressional term limits amendment to the
Constitution, Congress is bypassed, and the amendment can be proposed
by the states for ratification. Or Congress might see how popular the
issue is and act as it did with the 22nd Amendment.
A growing roster of states have called for a limited convention to propose
a congressional term limits amendment to the Constitution. In
Pennsylvania, State Rep. Jared Solomon will be proposing the
congressional term limits resolution with bipartisan support.
If term limits are good enough for the president, why not for Congress?
Andy Dinniman and John Eichelberger are Pennsylvania State co-
chairs for U.S. Term Limits and former Pennsylvania state senators,
the first as a Democrat and the second as a Republican.
First Published: February 25, 2025, 5:30 a.m.
