LIMITING TERMS

Term limits are a bad idea whose time has come.

This populous notion has swept through 15 states where terms of members of Congress have been limited. Eight more states will pose the issue on the ballot in November. These limits typically pass voters' muster with overwhelming majorities.

But this fall, term limits will be reviewed by the highest court in the land. President Clinton's solicitor general, Drew Days, has said he will argue that the limits are unconstitutional.

This stance seems unwise for an administration that continues to slip in popularity polls.

The public is clearly fed up with career politicians who remain deaf to the call for change. But while public frustration remains high, incumbents continue to raise the bucks and buck ouster efforts.

The fact states are passing term limits at the federal level could give the court a peg to overturn limits. Such a decision could also spur a populous revolt against life terms for federal judges.

It could also provoke an effort to amend the Constitution. An amendment, which would require approval by both Houses and two-thirds of the states, also would create uniform term limits for federal officeholders.

If politicians balk, another route -- never tried in 200 years -- awaits. Three-fourths of the state legislatures could call a constitutional convention, but critics worry this would open the door to all kinds of less desirable constitutional changes.

The Clinton administration should think twice before trying to derail congressional term limits. There are too many politicians who make a mockery of both the system and honest lawmakers.