They would have to amend the Constitution to get this changed. And a Constitutional Convention would have to be convened, and then two-thirds of the state legislatures of 50 states (34 of them) would have to ratify.
The same way the Constitution was changed for the presidency in 1951 to two terms maximum. By constitutional convention and state ratification. NOT BY AN ACT OF CONGRESS!
It's unbelievable that elected officials at the federal level are conveniently avoiding or trying to leapfrog past the 50-state legislature ratification requirement and are talking like "boyz in da' hood" about American jurisprudence and the separation of powers as a matter the currently elected Congress by itself can affect.
The reason the founders in their wisdom gave the USSC life terms or "continuance on good behavior" was to insulate them from the influences of constantly changing political winds in the electoral movements of the legislative and executive branches.
Incorrect again! An amendment may be proposed by Congress. The amendment proposal would require approval of two thirds of the House and two thirds of the Senate. Ratification would require three fourths (38) of the states, either by state legislatures or by state ratification conventions as directed by Congress when the amendment proposal was sent to the states for ratification by Joint Resolution of Congress. Please read Article V.
The same way the Constitution was changed for the presidency in 1951 to two terms maximum. By constitutional convention and state ratification. NOT BY AN ACT OF CONGRESS!
Wrong, wrong, wrong! It was done by both Houses of Congress approving it by at least a two thirds margin. There has never been a constitutional convention held under the terms of Article V. (The Constitutional Convention of 1787 was held under the terms of the Articles of Confederation.)