By Samuel Strait, Reporter at Large – February 7, 2021 The following is the second part of a two part series on federal term limits. As explained in the first part in order to impose term limits on members of Congress it is necessary to amend the US Constitution, which is not an easy process. On the legislative side it requires a two thirds vote in both houses of congress or a convention of states to be called with two thirds of the state's legislatures plus a three quarter vote to ratify. The founders made the process difficult to insure a significant majority were in favor of an amendment, rather than a simple majority. The founders were wise in placing these kinds of constraints on important government business in order to avoid bare majorities, which would generally give rise to a significant portion of the population unhappy with the results. This is a lesson that apparently recent governance in California and locally hasn't learned. With regard to term limits, there are a number of PROS that have circulated each time the issue comes up. Many state governments have passed term limits on state office holders, and the pros for this action generally begin with reducing corruption. The idea is that long term office holders often loose their way after a period of time in office, and as a consequence use their office for self interest rather than what is best for their constituents. This has been demonstratively true for federal office holders as well. The next argument is that federal office was never meant to be a career, but a part time patriotic duty in a limited government setting. Another suggestion is that when new people are introduced on a more regular basis, new ideas tend to enter the mix which could be beneficial. And finally, money and fund raising would be reduced and kept out of the perennial political arena eliminating vast sums of money and time needed to run for office. I can't say that I agree with all of the pros as it seems that corruption and big money are here to stay, no matter how often representatives are subject to change. It would continue to be necessary for voters to learn all they can about their perspective representatives to avoid a corrupt or incompetent representative. As far as CONS to term limits, the first thing that comes to mind is that it would prevent voters from voting for people who best represent them after the office holder's term expires. In the same vein, it would eliminate many experienced lawmakers from using what they have learned for the benefit of their voters. Yes, it may disqualify corrupt, powerful office holders, but it may also disqualify those that are truly beneficial to the governing process. Another problem with term limits that has been expressed is that it would prevent long term relationships from forming, sometimes critical for passage of important pieces of legislation. And finally, even with shorten time in office, corruption doesn't seem to have much of a problem working its way into the mix. I really like the idea of a substantially stream lined federal government that only needs a part time legislative branch, something that was intended at the formation. Term limits would seem to be a very good idea if federal office holders were only meant to handle the tasks outlined in the constitution and nothing more. Corruption, big money, lobbying and other dubious practices could be kept to a minimum. Power for most other thorny questions would revert to the States where it belongs in the first place. The importance of the federal government would be reduced to only those tasks it was constitutionally obligated to fulfill. Federal officials would become less important and government would come closer to home and more importantly closer to the voters.