Summary#
H.J. Res. 5 proposes an amendment to the U.S. Constitution; it does not amend an ordinary federal law or create a program. Its stated goal is to limit how many terms someone may serve in Congress. It would take effect only if two-thirds of each chamber approves it and three-fourths of state legislatures ratify it within seven years after it is submitted for ratification.
- A person could serve no more than six two-year terms as a Representative or two six-year terms as a Senator.
- More than one year of service in a House term, or more than three years in a Senate term, would count as a full term, even if someone other than the person originally elected completed that term.
- The limits would not apply to anyone who served in the House or Senate in a Congress before the 118th Congress.
- The resolution is before the House Judiciary Committee. It is not law, and the limits would not take effect unless the amendment is approved and ratified.
What it means for you#
- Representatives and senators: If the amendment takes effect, those covered by it could not serve beyond the stated limits.
- Voters: You could not elect a candidate covered by the limits to serve beyond them. The bill exempts anyone who served in Congress before the 118th Congress.
- People generally: The proposal does not directly change individual rights, taxes, benefits, or public services.
Money#
The available materials give no cost estimate.
- The resolution does not specify spending, fees, fines, or revenue changes.
- It does not say whether any costs would arise from proposing or ratifying the amendment.
What is unclear#
- The text does not explain how service of one year or less in a House term, or three years or less in a Senate term, would count.
- It does not spell out how the limits would apply to a person serving non-consecutive terms.
- It does not provide a separate start date beyond the amendment taking effect through ratification.
- The broad exemption for anyone who served before the 118th Congress means people with earlier congressional service would not be subject to these limits.
Case for#
- A possible argument for the amendment is that term limits could make it harder for a person to remain in Congress for many years.
- The limits are stated in the Constitution, so they would set a national rule rather than leave the issue to separate laws or policies.
- Counting substantial service in a partly served term could prevent someone from avoiding the limit simply because they did not serve the full term.
Case against#
- The limits would restrict voters’ choices by barring covered candidates from serving after they reach the cap.
- The exemption for anyone who served before the 118th Congress means the limits would not apply equally to all people with congressional experience.
- The bill leaves some details about partial and non-consecutive service unclear, which could lead to disputes about who has reached the limit.