<The Republicans were responsible for the term limits on the Presidency because they got in a snit over FDR's four consecutive electoral wins. I remember the talk of repealing that amendment once there was a Republican incumbent that was considered electable for 3 terms. If that isn't politically convenient support for altering the Law -- not once, mind you, but twice (though only one amendment) -- I don't know what is.

We're probably lucky we did put in term limits on Presidents, or the current officeholder would probably be Roosevelt's grandson. Or Reagan would be drooling on the desk in the Oval Office as we speak. For every President you wish would go on forever, there is one that you wish to God hadn't gotten even the one term.

There is a certain inertia to voters which results in Senators who have been in office all their lives. I do not think that this is conducive to good government, and wouldn't mind proposing an amendment to put term limits on Senators as well.

There is nothing wrong--or at least illegal--with trying to go through channels to change a law that works against you. This is the whole point of having a legislature. There is a big difference between adding or repealing a constitutional amendment using the proper constitutional process, and trying to "interpret" an amendment out of existence using the courts. Same for regular laws. If the Democrats want to change the New Jersey 51-day rule, they can propose it as legislation, subject to vote, same as everyone else. Trying to get a friendly judge to declare the law null and void just because some politicians don't like it short circuits and corrupts the process.

Republicans gerrymander too.

Sure they do. Everybody does. In fact, tweaking the districts to favor the party in power is so traditional, that you rarely hear the party out of power complain about it anymore. Their turn will come.