absolutely they exist IMO but the voters are allowed to fix them. Don't like the guy you put in? Voted out after one term. Like the new guy you just put in? Keep him there for 4 termsThen, in a sense, we've instituted our own term limits as a voter base which I'm all for. Vote the clowns on both sides out.
Term limits are unConstitutional (to include term limits for Presidents) in that they directly defy the ability of the electorate to choose their representatives.
not sure how something in the Constitution can be unconstitutional
So is that better than keeping representatives in for countless terms that end up shredding the Constitution as it is?
Less time in Washington, less career politicians (it's public service, not a profession), less time for the special interests to get in their pocket, less damage that can be done.
Term limits are unConstitutional (to include term limits for Presidents) in that they directly defy the ability of the electorate to choose their representatives.
No, but two other major pieces of legislation (one an amendment, the other just routine legislation), have also defied the spirit of the Constitution in that they have taken vast amounts of power from the people: namely, the change in the way Senators are elected/appointed; and, the cap on the number of Representatives, thus reducing, every single year, each individual citizen's influence over Congress and, hence, over the Federal Government (and, it is much easier for special interest groups to pay off a material amount of representatives in a body of 435 than to pay off a material amount of representatives in a body of over 1,000).
Small gov't =/= less powerful gov't.
Big gov't =/= more powerful gov't.
Larger assemblies, which lowered the ratio of representatives to citizens would result in a more powerful citizenry, and thus a less powerful gov't. The problems of term limits are ultimately a problem with oligarchy; and, the ratio or rep's to citizens surely signals an oligarchy more than any type of representative republic.
We under no circumstances want a constitutional convention.
Certainly an interesting line of thinking. Problem arises in the oligarchical system that politicians make a career of it and end up becoming de facto aristocracy no matter if there are 535 or 5,035. You stay in office long enough and you gain the political power associated with some of our leading political figures today.
But the real problem lies in the voter base itself. Even if the representation was diluted even further like you suggest, the people still won't get out and vote. Or when they do vote, they take little consideration of who the person is into account and just keep voting for the devil they know instead of taking a chance on someone else. Maybe term limits would actually force the people to pay attention for a change and listen to what the candidates are running for instead of "well, so-and-so served 20 years already, why change horses?"
I'm a dreamer, I know.
term limits are an eligibility issue which is certainly within the bounds of the Constitution. Hell, the Constitution itself explicitly states eligibility standards so those directly defy the ability of the electorate to choose their representative.
In short, term limits are not inherently unConstitutional.