Congressional Term Limits

    In our current system, unlimited terms allow a few Senators and Representatives who have been elected many times to dominate committees and leadership positions, not only influencing policy but steering huge amounts of money to their home states.  Although some of these members may have been re-elected from their own merits,  it is in the interest of the people in a state to re-elect the same person many times no matter what so they can have greater patronage.  Therefore, there is a pressure to preserve incumbents in office even if their challengers would be better for the country.
    The advantage of term limits would be that they would equalize the power of states and districts, decrease the tendency for the leadership to be filled with elderly members who are no longer at the height of their powers, and reduce the time sitting members spend congress more reflective of the nation's opinions.  Possibly this would lead the congress to regain some of its powers compared to the president, as presidents are most effective in their first years while congresspeople are in no position to influence policy until later terms, when they have been adapted to the system.  It would also give more citizens the opportunity to serve in Congress.
   The first drawback is that it would get rid good members along with bad ones.  I don't really see this as a bad thing, unless members actually get better over time.  It would eliminate the most experienced members, however, new members would likely have experience it state legislatures and they could move on to other elected offices.  Also, there may be a tendency toward a revolving door effect where members alternate between public and private offices.  However, if they are looking to run for office they are probably less likely to take kickbacks from corporations than if they want to get an executive appointment.

    Even if an individual state chose unilaterally to limit the terms of their own members of Congress, it would be to that state's severe disadvantage, essentially closing their representatives from leadership.  Likewise, it would be unlikely for Congress to limit their own terms by law, since it would be against their own interest and they could repeal it at will.  Anyway, the courts would likely hold either of these restriction unconstitutional based on precedent.
    Therefore, it is likely the only change is going to come form a constitutional amendment.  And even this change will probably only come from a constitutional convention, because it would be difficult to get 2/3 of both the House and the Senate to agree to do something that would hurt them.  One advantage of this amendment would be that it would encourage Congress to make more similar reforms (ie. public financing) since they would not be damaging to the current members.
   The correct number of terms is a tricky question.  Two for the Senate and six for the House would allow each member to spend 12 years in each house, three in the House would ensure that the House would have a more rapid turnover of membership.  One compromise would be to limit to two consecutive in the Senate and three in the House, but allow members to run again later.