Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
This resolution proposes an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to limit how many terms a person may serve in the House and Senate. It would cap Representatives at six two-year terms and Senators at two six-year terms, with rules for when partial service counts as a full term. The change would only become part of the Constitution if three-fourths of state legislatures ratify it within seven years of submission.
A constitutional amendment joint resolution must be approved by two-thirds of both the House and Senate and then ratified by three-fourths of the states within the stated seven-year period; it is not presented to the President.
This joint resolution proposes a constitutional amendment to impose term limits for Members of Congress.
It would limit Representatives to six two-year terms and Senators to two six-year terms, with partial-term counting rules.
Service before the One Hundred Eighteenth Congress is exempt, and ratification would require three-fourths of state legislatures within seven years.
Constitutional amendments face high supermajority and three-fourths state ratification hurdles; modest bipartisan appeal reduces but does not eliminate barriers.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a clearly written constitutional amendment that specifies numeric term limits, partial-term counting thresholds, an effective temporal cutoff, and a ratification deadline. Those elements meaningfully define the substantive change and the immediate transition.
Grandfather clause: liberals see loophole; conservatives may accept compromise.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Grandfather clause: liberals see loophole; conservatives may accept compromise.
Likely cautiously supportive of term limits as an anti‑incumbency reform, but critical of the exemption for service before the 118th Congress.
Concerned that the amendment could weaken progressive policy continuity and empower unelected actors.
Generally favorable to reasonable term limits to promote turnover and accountability, but cautious about implementation details.
Worries include loss of institutional knowledge and whether a constitutional amendment is the appropriate, inflexible vehicle.
Broadly supportive because term limits align with limited-government and anti‑entrenchment principles.
Some caution about losing seasoned lawmakers and whether exemptions improperly protect incumbents, but overall favorable to turnover.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Constitutional amendments face high supermajority and three-fourths state ratification hurdles; modest bipartisan appeal reduces but does not eliminate barriers.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Grandfather clause: liberals see loophole; conservatives may accept compromise.
Constitutional amendments face high supermajority and three-fourths state ratification hurdles; modest bipartisan appeal reduces but does n…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a clearly written constitutional amendment that specifies numeric term limits, partial-term counting thresholds, an effective temporal cutoff, and a ratification d…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.