Term Limits 2
I see the merit in term limits in that politicians can and are seemingly more interested in advocating for large and wealthy entities versus the citizens who voted them into office.
I sense that even with term limits, the cycle of bias and corruption will not cease.
However, I also sense that the few politicians who are truly representing their diverse constituencies will be negatively impacted since they too would be subject to term limits. In reality, it seems that while term limits sound like a good idea, the political system that is replete with bias and corruption would simply and quickly adjust to continue to dominate the political landscape.
Yet, in terms of U.S. Term Limits, the court cited that “the power to add qualifications was not part of the original powers of sovereignty that the Tenth Amendment reserved to the States.” 
The court continued to state that the petitioners’ Tenth Amendment argument misconceived the nature of the right at issue (whether the state has a right to impose term limits) because that Amendment could only “reserve” that which existed before. 
Because the state could only exercise rights granted to it under the U.S. constitution, the state must abide by the language in article I which states what the qualifications for those to be able to serve in congress.
 US Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779, 115 S. Ct. 1842, 131 L. Ed. 2d 881 (1995).
 Id. at 802.