Applying to the United States Congress under Article V of the United States Constitution to call for a convention for proposing an amendment to the constitution establishing congressional term limits.
If enacted, HJR5002 would initiate a significant shift in the governance of federal elected officials, aiming to curb long tenures that may contribute to political stagnation and disconnect from constituents. Proponents believe that term limits would encourage new perspectives in Congress, allow for greater citizen engagement in politics, and ultimately enhance accountability. This move is framed as a necessary measure to maintain the democratic integrity of the legislative process by ensuring that representatives remain closely aligned with the interests of their constituents.
House Joint Resolution 5002 (HJR5002) calls for a convention to propose an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to establish term limits for members of Congress. Introduced by the South Dakota Legislature, the resolution emphasizes the need to protect liberty by limiting the time elected officials can serve, aligning with the framers' original intentions for a citizen legislature. The resolution invokes Article V of the Constitution, which grants state legislatures the power to advocate for amendments via a convention, should two-thirds of the states concur.
The sentiment surrounding HJR5002 appears to be largely positive among those advocating for political reforms, particularly from sectors frustrated with perceived entrenched incumbency in Congress. Supporters assert that this resolution would rejuvenate democracy by preventing career politicians from dominating the legislative landscape. However, some slightly express concerns regarding the feasibility and implications of such measures, highlighting that term limits might disadvantage legislative experience and expertise, potentially leading to increased inexperience among representatives.
Notable points of contention include differences in opinion regarding the effectiveness of term limits. While advocates cite examples from states with similar regulations that show potential benefits, opponents worry about the disruption of legislative continuity and the loss of institutional knowledge. Furthermore, there is debate on whether a convention called for this purpose could robustly address such issues without opening the door to unintended amendments that could alter the Constitution more broadly.