This all seems to encapsulate the ancient myth of Cinncinatus.

He comes to the aid of his country in need and after fighting the good fight returns to his vineyards. ha

Interesting, and I do wonder at times if it isn't necessary. But let's remember, I think it was in the Articles of Confederation, they referred to it as Rotation of Office, and it was the expectation that every eligible citizen would serve in order to give everyone a stake in making sure the government runs effectively.

The council of 500 in ancient Athens rotated its entire membership annually, as did the ephorate in ancient Sparta. The ancient Roman Republic featured a system of elected magistrates—tribunes of the plebs, aediles, quaestors, praetors, and consuls—who served a single term of one year, with reelection to the same magistracy forbidden for ten years. (See Cursus honorum) Many of the founders of the United States were educated in the classics, and quite familiar with rotation in office during antiquity. The debates of that day reveal a desire to study and profit from the object lessons offered by ancient democracy.

It's some pretty interesting stuff.  By 1783 Rotation experiments were taking place at the State level. The Pennsylvania Constitution of 1776 set set maximum service in the Pennsylvania General Assembly at "four years in seven." Benjamin Franklin's influence is seen not only in that he chaired the constitutional convention which drafted the Pennsylvania constitution, but also because it included, virtually unchanged, Franklin's earlier proposals on executive rotation. Pennsylvania's plural executive was composed of twelve citizens elected for the term of three years, followed by a mandatory vacation of four years. Because of Thomas Jefferson rotation of service, or term limits were included in the Articles of Confederation. The fifth Article stated that "no person shall be capable of being a delegate [to the continental congress] for more than three years in any term of six years."  There were people who argued at the time America was drafting and adopting the Constitution that it was a big mistake not to include rotation of service within the governing document.

So it seems there are many who believe that term limits are a great idea, I think so too, and it might be the one Amendment that could pass these days, well at least everywhere but within congress. I wonder if they would bend to their constituents on that, it might be interesting to see.

Interesting and thought provoking blog Ami!

Chile has really strict term limits on their elected leaders and have been able to find the magical balance of a welfare state, growing market economy and limits on power. I say we look to them.

Ultimately, I don't like term limits so much either.  If the people want the same representative over and over, why not?  I'd rather change some of the conditions that give incumbents so many advantages.  Publicly financed elections with no private money, for example, would negate the incumbent fundraising advantage.  That said, this would be better than what we have now.

At first I thought I was going to object to taking their pensions away.  But the more I think about it, the more I think that these people have to be exposed to the realities of the inadequate 401(k) program. 

For several reasons, this is a very bad idea.  If the thought is to reduce the power of lobbyists, then this is the absolute wrong way to go.  Congresspeople do the bidding of well-heeled corporations in order to get political contributions to use to maintain their seat.  Potential candidates for office promise through word and deed to follow a corporatist line in order to get funding to defeat incumbents. 

In light of the Citizens' United decision, incumbency is the only real bulwark against corporate influence.  After a period of time, constituents come to know and trust their elected representatives and thus are less likely to fall prey to the expensive propaganda top corporate managers use to gull the public into electing bad candidates. 

Taking away pensions and health care will only make it less likely that anybody but a super-wealthy individual will run for office.

This "amendment" does not address the revolving door whereby elected officials leave office to become lobbyists and then run for office several years later.

The problem in politics is the money that buys offices and officeholders.  This bill will only make the situation worse.  It is most likely a Trojan Horse being pushed by corporate interests.

So term limits is back as another political distraction, eh? Well, can someone point out where the founding fathers discussed whether or not a Congress critters term of office should or should not have time restrictions? I don't believe the thought entered their minds. I'd say they probably felt the longer one held office at the pleasure of their constitutients the better they were able to take care of the wants needs and desires of the state they represented. IMO, all talk of term limits is nothing more than political sour grapes...our guy can't get elected cause the incumbant has it locked up tighter than a drum. Well, all locks have keys.