Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
This resolution proposes an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to limit how long 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 counting certain partial terms as full terms. If two-thirds of both the House and Senate approve it and then three-fourths of state legislatures ratify it within seven years, it would become part of the Constitution. Until those state ratifications happen it has no legal effect and it would not apply to people who served before the 118th Congress.
A proposed constitutional amendment must be approved by two-thirds of both chambers of Congress and then ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures within the seven-year deadline in the text; it is not submitted to the President.
This joint resolution proposes a constitutional amendment imposing term limits for Congress: Representatives may serve no more than six two-year terms (12 years) and Senators no more than two six-year terms (12 years).
Partial-term service is counted as a full term if it exceeds one year for Representatives or three years for Senators.
The amendment would not apply to anyone who served in Congress before the 118th Congress.
Constitutional amendment route is high-bar; modest policy appeal but historical record shows such amendments rarely achieve required congressional and state approvals.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a clearly focused constitutional amendment that specifies numerical term limits and partial-term counting rules and includes a ratification deadline and a non-retroactivity clause. It lacks explicit administrative enforcement mechanisms, detailed integration with existing constitutional and statutory frameworks, and discussion of implementation or fiscal consequences.
Liberals worry about losing experienced progressive champions; conservatives emphasize turnover benefits.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Liberals worry about losing experienced progressive champions; conservatives emphasize turnover benefits.
Skeptical overall.
Supports citizen turnover in principle but worries about loss of experienced lawmakers and impacts on progressive policy continuity.
Concerned the grandfathering exemption and partial-term rules create uneven application.
Mixed pragmatism.
Sees value in reducing career politicians but worries about losing legislative expertise and creating governance tradeoffs.
Wants clear, fair application and attention to unintended consequences.
Generally favorable.
Views term limits as a check on career politicians and bureaucratic capture.
Supports fixed tenure to promote accountability, though may dislike exemptions that dilute reform.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Constitutional amendment route is high-bar; modest policy appeal but historical record shows such amendments rarely achieve required congressional and state approvals.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Liberals worry about losing experienced progressive champions; conservatives emphasize turnover benefits.
Constitutional amendment route is high-bar; modest policy appeal but historical record shows such amendments rarely achieve required congre…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a clearly focused constitutional amendment that specifies numerical term limits and partial-term counting rules and includes a ratification deadline and a non-retr…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.