Why Are There No Term Limits for Congress? Here's Why That Needs to Change

If you’ve ever wondered why the same politicians seem to stay in Washington for decades — collecting power, perks, and pensions while regular families struggle — you’re not alone. “Why are there no term limits for Congress?” is one of the most-searched political questions in America, and for good reason.

The short answer: Congress hasn’t imposed term limits on itself because doing so would require members of Congress to vote away their own jobs. Career politicians protecting career politicians.

Here’s what you need to know — and why John Peters is running for Florida’s 16th Congressional District to change it.

Does Congress Have Term Limits?

No. Members of the U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate serve unlimited terms. There is no federal law or constitutional provision capping how long a member of Congress can serve.

By contrast, the President is limited to two terms by the 22nd Amendment (ratified in 1951). The Vice President, Cabinet members, and federal judges also face various constraints on their service. Yet Congress — despite having enormous power over Americans’ lives, controlling the federal purse, and writing the laws that govern every aspect of American life — faces no limit on how many terms its members can serve.

Some states attempted to solve this by imposing term limits on their own federal representatives. The U.S. Supreme Court ended that approach in U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton (1995), ruling 5–4 that states cannot add qualifications for federal office beyond those listed in the Constitution. The Constitution requires only that House members be at least 25 years old, U.S. citizens for seven years, and residents of the state they represent. States cannot add term limits on top of these requirements.

The result: only a constitutional amendment can impose term limits on members of Congress. And a constitutional amendment requires Congress to pass it — the same career politicians who benefit from unlimited terms.

Who Voted Against Term Limits for Congress?

The pattern of congressional opposition to term limits is consistent and revealing.

In 1995, freshly empowered by the “Contract with America,” the Republican House majority brought the Congressional Term Limits Amendment to a floor vote. It required a two-thirds majority to pass. It failed — and the “nay” votes came disproportionately from members who had served the longest. Of the members who voted against, the vast majority had been in office for a decade or more — exactly the career politicians who stood to lose the most from term limits.

More recently, in 2023 and 2024, multiple term limits bills were introduced in both chambers. They barely received committee hearings, let alone floor votes. Leadership in both parties — which benefits from the seniority system that rewards long service with committee chairmanships and institutional power — has consistently failed to prioritize term limits legislation.

The pattern is consistent: the longer someone has been in Washington, the less likely they are to support term limits. The longer a member has served, the more they benefit from the current system — in seniority, in committee power, in name recognition, in fundraising relationships. The system protects itself by keeping the people who benefit from it in charge of changing it.

Polling consistently shows 70–80% of Americans — across party lines — support congressional term limits. The gap between public opinion and congressional action on this issue is one of the clearest illustrations of how Washington has stopped listening to the people it is supposed to represent.

What Would It Take to Pass Congressional Term Limits?

To impose term limits on Congress, one of two constitutional mechanisms must succeed:

Option 1: Congressional passage (Article V, Method 1)
Congress must pass a term limits amendment by a two-thirds majority in both chambers (290 of 435 in the House; 67 of 100 in the Senate). Then three- fourths of state legislatures (38 states) must ratify it. This is the standard constitutional amendment path — and the one that has been attempted and failed repeatedly because incumbents must vote to limit their own power.

Option 2: Convention of States (Article V, Method 2)
Article V of the Constitution provides an alternative: if two-thirds of state legislatures (34 states) call for a constitutional convention to propose amendments, that convention can meet and propose amendments — without Congress’s approval. The amendments proposed by the convention would still need ratification by three-fourths of states (38 states), but this pathway bypasses the congressional bottleneck entirely.

The Convention of States movement has been gaining significant momentum. As of 2026, 19 states have passed resolutions calling for a Convention of States under Article V — with term limits on federal officeholders as one of the specified topics. Reaching 34 states remains the goal, and the campaign continues in multiple state legislatures. A Convention of States specifically limited to the topics of term limits, fiscal restraints, and limiting federal power would allow state delegates to propose a term limits amendment directly to the American people for ratification — without waiting for Congress to act.

Critics of the Convention of States approach argue that a convention could become a “runaway convention” that addresses issues beyond its stated scope. Supporters counter that the ratification requirement — 38 states — provides a robust safeguard against any amendment that doesn’t have broad national support, regardless of what a convention proposes.

The bottom line: term limits will only happen when the American people elect representatives who are committed to passing them — cosponsoring the amendment, supporting the Convention of States process, and refusing to become the career politicians they were elected to replace.

Why Term Limits Matter for Florida’s 16th District

Florida’s 16th District — covering communities from Bradenton and Lakewood Ranch to Brandon, Riverview, and Sun City Center — is full of hardworking families who feel like Washington doesn’t listen to them.

That feeling has a structural cause. When the same members of Congress serve 20, 30, or 40 years, they stop representing their constituents and start representing their own interests — fundraising networks, lobbyists, and party leadership. Seniority becomes more valuable than constituent service. Relationships with donors become more important than relationships with voters.

Term limits would:

• Force fresh perspectives into Washington on a regular basis — elected officials who remember what it is like to live under the laws they pass
• Reduce the power of special interests that depend on long-serving members for favors, earmarks, and regulatory access
• Create genuine accountability — members who know they cannot serve forever have less incentive to prioritize reelection over results
• Encourage citizen legislators who come from real careers in business, medicine, agriculture, and trades — not professional political machines

The Founders envisioned a citizen legislature — people who serve for a period, then return to their communities. The modern Congress has drifted far from that vision. Term limits would restore it. Read more about what Congress is supposed to do and how it works →

John Peters’ Commitment to Term Limits

John Peters is running for Congress in Florida’s 16th District because he believes in citizen service — not career politics. He is a businessman, not a politician. He has run a company, made payroll, managed costs, and solved problems. He brings that same practical mindset to Washington.

As FL-16’s congressman, Peters will:

1. Cosponsor the Congressional Term Limits Amendment on day one — making it clear from the start that his vote is not for sale to the career politicians who benefit from the current system.
2. Support the Convention of States process to bypass Congress if the legislative path remains blocked by incumbents protecting their own tenure.
3. Pledge to serve no more than four terms (eight years) in the House — and keep that pledge.
4. Publicly name every member of Congress who votes against term limits — because voters deserve to know whose representative chose their career over constitutional accountability.

The American people overwhelmingly support term limits. The only people who don’t are the career politicians whose jobs are at stake. It is time to send someone to Washington who is there to serve — not to stay.

See John Peters’ full platform →