A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to limit the number of terms an individual may serve as a Member of Congress.

Download PDF
Bill ID: 119/sjres/48
Last Updated: April 14, 2025

Sponsored by

Sen. McCormick, David [R-PA]

ID: M001243

Follow the money

The bill

A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to limit the number of terms an individual may serve as a Member of Congress.

SJRES. 48, 119th Congress.

The sponsor

Sen. McCormick, David [R-PA]

Every bill has someone who introduced it. That name is where the paper trail starts.

The money

$273,350 raised

30 itemised contributions to this sponsor, pulled from FEC filings.

The alignment

70% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Foreword" section, p. 40-42 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Invalid Date

Introduced

📍 Current Status

Next: The bill will be reviewed by relevant committees who will debate, amend, and vote on it.

🏛️

Committee Review

🗳️

Floor Action

✅

Passed Senate

🏛️

House Review

🎉

Passed Congress

🖊️

Presidential Action

⚖️

Became Law

📚 How does a bill become a law?

1. Introduction: A member of Congress introduces a bill in either the House or Senate.

2. Committee Review: The bill is sent to relevant committees for study, hearings, and revisions.

3. Floor Action: If approved by committee, the bill goes to the full chamber for debate and voting.

4. Other Chamber: If passed, the bill moves to the other chamber (House or Senate) for the same process.

5. Conference: If both chambers pass different versions, a conference committee reconciles the differences.

6. Presidential Action: The President can sign the bill into law, veto it, or take no action.

7. Became Law: If signed (or if Congress overrides a veto), the bill becomes law!

Bill Summary

(sigh) Oh joy, another "reform" bill from the esteemed members of Congress. Let's dissect this farce.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** (rolls eyes) To limit the number of terms an individual can serve in Congress, because clearly, these selfless public servants need to be protected from their own incompetence and corruption. The main objective is to create a veneer of accountability while maintaining the status quo.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:**

* Section 1: Representatives are limited to six two-year terms (12 years). Wow, what a sacrifice. * Section 2: Senators are limited to two six-year terms (12 years). Oh, the humanity! * Grandfather clause (Section 3): Anyone who served before the 118th Congress is exempt. Because, of course, the current crop of politicians is too entrenched to be affected.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** (chuckles) The only parties affected are the ones who will continue to exploit this system: incumbent politicians, their donors, and special interest groups. Voters? Ha! They're just pawns in this game.

**Potential Impact & Implications:**

* This bill is a Band-Aid on a bullet wound. It won't address the root causes of corruption, such as campaign finance reform or lobbying regulations. * The real impact will be to create a new class of "lame duck" politicians who'll spend their final terms enriching themselves and their cronies before exiting stage left. * This bill will not reduce the influence of money in politics; it will only shift the focus from long-term incumbency to short-term, high-stakes politicking.

Diagnosis: This bill is a symptom of "Potemkin Village Syndrome," where politicians create the illusion of reform while maintaining the underlying rot. The disease is terminal: a corrupt system that prioritizes power and wealth over accountability and representation.

Treatment? (shrugs) None. The patient is too far gone. Just more of the same: empty promises, cynical posturing, and a continued erosion of trust in our institutions. Now, if you'll excuse me, I have better things to do than analyze this legislative placebo.

Related Topics

Federal Budget & AppropriationsCongressional Rules & ProceduresJudiciary & Legal Reform
Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (Dr. Haus personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Sen. McCormick, David [R-PA]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions
$273,350
29 donors
PACs
$2,500
Organizations
$33,250
Committees
$0
Individuals
$237,600
1
SIG SAUER PAC
1 transaction
$2,500
1
SEGURO MEDICO LLC
1 transaction
$10,000
2
CLEMENTS MIDWAY PARTNERS LLC
1 transaction
$10,000
3
BLOOMSBURG INDUSTRIAL VENTURES LLC
2 transactions
$4,700
4
SUN CENTER LP
1 transaction
$2,500
5
UTILITY ADVISORY GROUP LLC
1 transaction
$1,500
6
MODEVITY LLC
1 transaction
$1,500
7
O'DONNELL PARTNERS LLC
1 transaction
$1,500
8
KRAUSE & ASSOCIATES LP
1 transaction
$1,000
9
GVH PARTNERS
1 transaction
$500
10
MARSHALL LINE FENCE LLC
1 transaction
$50

No committee contributions found

1
ATKINS, PAUL S.
1 transaction
$13,200
2
KUEHNER, CARL
1 transaction
$13,200
3
TSYGANSKIY, IGOR
1 transaction
$13,200
4
SCARAMUCCI, ANTHONY
1 transaction
$13,200
5
REIBEL, JAMES
1 transaction
$13,200
6
CHAI, CHUCKRA
1 transaction
$13,200
7
BREED, ALAN
1 transaction
$13,200
8
DUBIN, GLENN
1 transaction
$13,200
9
MCCORMICK, DOUG
1 transaction
$13,200
10
THOMAS, AMY L.
1 transaction
$13,200
11
WALLACE, JENNIFER A.
1 transaction
$13,200
12
MCGAVICK, MICHAEL
1 transaction
$13,200
13
PATEL, CHIRAG
1 transaction
$13,200
14
PSAROS, MICHAEL
1 transaction
$13,200
15
OBERNDORF, WILLIAM
1 transaction
$13,200
16
MINNIS, CHRISTINA MRS.
1 transaction
$13,200
17
LACKIE, JAMES D. MR.
1 transaction
$13,200
18
KERKO, DAVID
1 transaction
$13,200

Donor Network - Sen. McCormick, David [R-PA]

PACs
Organizations
Individuals
Politicians

Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.

Loading...

Showing 50 nodes and 30 connections (48 secondary connections hidden)

Total contributions: $273,350

Top Donors - Sen. McCormick, David [R-PA]

Showing top 25 donors by contribution amount

1 PAC10 Orgs18 Individuals

Project 2025 Policy Matches

This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document.AI-enhanced analysis provides detailed alignment ratings.

Foreword

Moderate
Vector: 61%
Pages: 40-42AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"SJRES 48 aims to increase congressional turnover and reduce entrenched power, which aligns with Project 2025's critique of congressional leaders delegating authority to the Administrative State to avoid accountability. Both seek to restore legislative responsibility and democratic oversight, though the bill does not directly address bureaucratic reform."

Key themes:congressional accountabilitylegislative powerAdministrative Statedemocratic oversightterm limits

— 7 — Foreword Instead, party leaders negotiate one multitrillion-dollar spending bill—several thousand pages long—and then vote on it before anyone, literally, has had a chance to read it. Debate time is restricted. Amendments are prohibited. And all of this is backed up against a midnight deadline when the previous “omnibus” spending bill will run out and the federal government “shuts down.” This process is not designed to empower 330 million American citizens and their elected representatives, but rather to empower the party elites secretly nego- tiating without any public scrutiny or oversight. In the end, congressional leaders’ behavior and incentives here are no differ- ent from those of global elites insulating policy decisions—over the climate, trade, public health, you name it—from the sovereignty of national electorates. Public scrutiny and democratic accountability make life harder for policymakers—so they skirt it. It’s not dysfunction; it’s corruption. And despite its gaudy price tag, the federal budget is not even close to the worst example of this corruption. That distinction belongs to the “Administrative State,” the dismantling of which must a top priority for the next conservative President. The term Administrative State refers to the policymaking work done by the bureaucracies of all the federal government’s departments, agencies, and millions of employees. Under Article I of the Constitution, “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives.” That is, federal law is enacted only by elected legislators in both houses of Congress. This exclusive authority was part of the Framers’ doctrine of “separated powers.” They not only split the federal government’s legislative, executive, and judicial powers into different branches. They also gave each branch checks over the others. Under our Constitution, the legislative branch—Congress—is far and away the most powerful and, correspondingly, the most accountable to the people. In recent decades, members of the House and Senate discovered that if they give away that power to the Article II branch of government, they can also deny responsi- bility for its actions. So today in Washington, most policy is no longer set by Congress at all, but by the Administrative State. Given the choice between being powerful but vulnerable or irrelevant but famous, most Members of Congress have chosen the latter. Congress passes intentionally vague laws that delegate decision-making over a given issue to a federal agency. That agency’s bureaucrats—not just unelected but seemingly un-fireable—then leap at the chance to fill the vacuum created by Congress’s preening cowardice. The federal government is growing larger and less constitutionally accountable—even to the President—every year. l A combination of elected and unelected bureaucrats at the Environmental Protection Agency quietly strangles domestic energy production through difficult-to-understand rulemaking processes;

Federal Election Commission

Weak
Vector: 64%
Pages: 898-900AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"Both the bill and the Project 2025 FEC section aim to improve the integrity of the electoral system, but they address distinct mechanisms—SJRES 48 imposes term limits on legislators, while the FEC proposals focus on agency structure, litigation authority, and campaign finance rules. The overlap is limited to a shared goal of electoral reform without direct policy alignment."

Key themes:election reformcongressional accountabilitypolitical process integrity

— 865 — Federal Election Commission l As a legislative matter and given this abuse, the President should seriously consider recommending that Congress amend FECA to remove the agency’s independent litigating authority and rely on the Department of Justice to handle all litigation involving the FEC. There are also multiple instances of existing statutory provisions of FECA and the accompanying FEC regulations having been found unlawful or unconstitu- tional by federal court decisions, yet those statutory provisions remain in the U.S. Code and the implementing regulations remain in the Code of Federal Regula- tions.12 In such instances, those regulated by the law, from candidates to the public, have no way of knowing (without engaging in extensive legal research) whether particular statutory provisions and regulations are still applicable to their actions in the political arena. l The President should request that the commissioners on the FEC prepare such guidance. l In the event that the FEC fails to act, the President should direct the attorney general to prepare a guidance document from the Department of Justice for the public that outlines all of the FECA statutory provisions and FEC regulations that have been changed, amended, or voided by specific court decisions. Legislative Changes. While a President’s ability to make any changes at an independent agency like the FEC is limited,13 the President has the ability to make legislative recommendations to Congress. One of the most obvious changes that is needed is to end the current practice of allowing commissioners to remain as serving commissioners long after their term has expired, defying the clear intent of Congress in specifying that a commissioner can only serve a single term of six years. l The President should prioritize nominations to the FEC once commissioners reach the end of their terms and should be assisted by legislative language either eliminating or limiting overstays to a reasonable period of time to permit the vetting, nomination, and confirmation of successors. l The President should vigorously oppose all efforts, as proposed, for example, in Section 6002 of the “For the People Act of 2021,”14 to change the structure of the FEC to reduce the number of commissioners from six to five or another odd number. The current requirement of four votes to authorize an enforcement action, provide — 866 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise an advisory opinion, or issue regulations, ensures that there is bipartisan agreement before any action is taken and protects against the FEC being used as a political weapon. With only five commissioners, three members of the same political party could control the enforcement process of the agency, raising the potential of a powerful federal agency enforcing the law on a partisan basis against the members of the opposition political party. Efforts to impose a “nonpartisan” or so-called “inde- pendent” chair are impractical; the chair will inevitably be aligned with his or her appointing party, at least as a matter of perception. There are numerous other changes that should be considered in FECA and the FEC’s regulations. The overly restrictive limits on the ability of party com- mittees to coordinate with their candidates, for example, violates associational rights and unjustifiably interferes with the very purpose of political parties: to elect their candidates. l Raise contribution limits and index reporting requirements to inflation. Contribution limits should generally be much higher, as they hamstring candidates and parties while serving no practical anticorruption purpose. And a wide range of reporting requirements have not been indexed to inflation, clogging the public record and the FEC’s internal processes with small-dollar information of little use to the public. CONCLUSION When taking any action related to the FEC, the President should keep in mind that, as former FEC Chairman Bradley Smith says, the “greater problem at the FEC has been overenforcement,” not underenforcement as some critics falsely allege.15 As he correctly concludes, the FEC’s enforcement efforts “place a substan- tial burden on small committees and campaigns, and are having a chilling effect on some political speech…squeezing the life out of low level, volunteer politi- cal activity.”16 Commissioners have a duty to enforce FECA in a fair, nonpartisan, objective manner. But they must do so in a way that protects the First Amendment rights of the public, political parties, and candidates to fully participate in the political process. The President has the same duty to ensure that the Department of Justice enforces the law in a similar manner.

Central Personnel Agencies: Managing the Bureaucracy

Weak
Vector: 62%
Pages: 112-114AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"Both proposals seek to reduce entrenched power and improve government efficiency, but SJRES 48 targets congressional term limits while the Project 2025 section focuses on civil service hiring, layoffs, and performance management, making the connection only tangential."

Key themes:term limitsbureaucratic reformperformance-based accountabilityreducing entrenched powergovernment efficiency

— 79 — Central Personnel Agencies: Managing the Bureaucracy What is needed at the beginning is a freeze on all top career-position hiring to prevent “burrowing-in” by outgoing political appointees. Moreover, four fac- tors determine the order in which employees are protected during layoffs: tenure, veterans’ preference, seniority, and performance in that order of importance. Despite several attempts in the House of Representatives during the Trump years to enact legislation that would modestly increase the weight given to performance over time-of-service, the fierce opposition by federal managers associations and unions representing long-serving but not necessarily well-performing constituents explains why the bills failed to advance. A determined President should insist that performance be first and be wary of costly types of reductions-in-force. Impenetrable Bureaucracy. The GAO has identified almost a hundred actions that the executive branch or Congress could take to improve efficiency and effec- tiveness across 37 areas that span a broad range of government missions and functions. It identified 33 actions to address mission fragmentation, overlap, and duplication in the 12 areas of defense, economic development, health, homeland security, and information technology. It also identified 59 other opportunities for executive agencies or Congress to reduce the cost of government operations or enhance revenue collection across 25 areas of government.20 A logical place to begin would be to identify and eliminate functions and pro- grams that are duplicated across Cabinet departments or spread across multiple agencies. Congress hoped to help this effort by passing the Government Perfor- mance and Results Act of 1993,21 which required all federal agencies to define their missions, establish goals and objectives, and measure and report their per- formance to Congress. Three decades of endless time-consuming reports later, the government continues to grow but with more paper and little change either in performance or in the number of levels between government and the people. The Brookings Institution’s Paul Light emphasizes the importance of the increasing number of levels between the top heads of departments and the people at the bottom who receive the products of government decision-making. He esti- mates that there are perhaps 50 or more levels of impenetrable bureaucracy and no way other than imperfect performance appraisals to communicate between them.22 The Trump Administration proposed some possible consolidations, but these were not received favorably in Congress, whose approval is necessary for most such proposals. The best solution is to cut functions and budgets and devolve respon- sibilities. That is a challenge primarily for Presidents, Congress, and the entire government, but the OPM still needs to lead the way governmentwide in managing personnel properly even in any future smaller government. Creating a Responsible Career Management Service. The people elect a President who is charged by Article 2, Section 3 of the Constitution23 with seeing that the laws are “faithfully executed” with his political appointees democratically linked to that legitimizing responsibility. An autonomous bureaucracy has neither — 80 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise independent constitutional status nor separate moral legitimacy. Therefore, career civil servants by themselves should not lead major policy changes and reforms. The creation of the Senior Executive Service was the top career change intro- duced by the 1978 Carter–Campbell Civil Service Reform Act. Its aim was to professionalize the career service and make it more responsible to the democrat- ically elected commander in chief and his political appointees while respecting the rights due to career employees, very much including those in the top positions. The new SES would allow management to be more flexible in filling and reassigning executive positions and locations beyond narrow specialties for more efficient mission accomplishment and would provide pay and large bonuses to motivate career performance. The desire to infiltrate political appointees improperly into the high career civil service has been widespread in every Administration, whether Democrat or Republican. Democratic Administrations, however, are typically more successful because they require the cooperation of careerists, who generally lean heavily to the Left. Such burrowing-in requires career job descriptions for new positions that closely mirror the functions of a political appointee; a special hiring authority that allows the bypassing of veterans’ preference as well as other preference categories; and the ability to frustrate career candidates from taking the desired position. President Reagan’s OPM began by limiting such SES burrowing-in, arguing that the proper course was to create and fill political positions. This simultane- ously promotes the CSRA principle of political leadership of the bureaucracy and respects the professional autonomy of the career service. But this requires that career SES employees should respect political rights too. Actions such as career staff reserving excessive numbers of key policy positions as “career reserved” to deny them to noncareer SES employees frustrate CSRA intent. Another evasion is the general domination by career staff on SES personnel evaluation boards, the opposite of noncareer executives dominating these critical meeting discussions as expected in the SES. Career training also often underplays the political role in leadership and inculcates career-first policy and value viewpoints. Frustrated with these activities by top career executives, the Trump Adminis- tration issued Executive Order 1395724 to make career professionals in positions that are not normally subject to change as a result of a presidential transition but who discharge significant duties and exercise significant discretion in formulating and implementing executive branch policy and programs an exception to the com- petitive hiring rules and examinations for career positions under a new Schedule F. It ordered the Director of OPM and agency heads to set procedures to prepare lists of such confidential, policy-determining, policymaking, or policy-advocating positions and prepare procedures to create exceptions from civil service rules when careerists hold such positions, from which they can relocate back to the regular civil service after such service. The order was subsequently reversed by President

Showing 3 of 5 policy matches

About These Correlations

Policy matches are calculated using a hybrid approach: initial candidates are found using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text, then an AI model (Llama 3.1 70B) provides detailed alignment ratings and analysis. Ratings range from 1 (minimal alignment) to 5 (very strong alignment). This analysis does not imply direct causation or intent.

Full Policy Text

Related Bills

Similar Topics