Over the years in Pennsylvania politics– “decades” is the better word — some incumbent lawmakers, sincere in supporting the concept of legislative term limits, have stepped forward to advocate for such a change.

Part of the thinking behind the proposal is the belief that legislative service is best when elected officials’ first concern is excellent work on their constituents’ and government’s behalf not built upon a priority of trying to ensure a political career lasting forever.

That is the message state Rep. Jared Solomon, D-Philadelphia, seems to be projecting in having introduced a concurrent resolution calling for the Keystone State to join states seeking a constitutional amendment for congressional term limits.

A second resolution is proposing term limits for U.S. Supreme Court justices — also a worthy proposal in this country’s volatile political and governmental climate.

“In a time of low trust in the government, we must take action to ensure our deliberative institutions are responsive to the people they serve,” Solomon explained in a memo dealing with his measure. “Too often, once a candidate is elected to Congress, the incumbency advantage they inherit is too much to overcome to allow for truly competitive elections.”

All of that is a reasonable observation, to which most, if not all, lawmakers should ascribe. Nevertheless, Solomon’s resolution is not likely destined for quick passage, if at all, if Pennsylvania political history is a true indicator.

Yet, even if Solomon’s measure were to be passed in this state, the odds are stacked against having such a constitutional amendment win approval on the national stage.

The last time an effort on behalf of a constitutional amendment proposed and ratified through state legislatures was successful was in 1992, involving the 27th amendment.

That amendment prohibits federal lawmakers from putting into effect raises or cuts involving their own salaries until after the next House election has taken place.

The Constitution’s 22nd amendment, imposing presidential term limits, was passed by Congress in 1951 after Franklin D. Roosevelt was elected to four consecutive terms.

Up until Roosevelt, presidents elected to a second term adhered to George Washington’s example of not vying for a third term.

Roosevelt served his entire third term, but died shortly after his fourth-term inauguration.

According to an article in the Mirror’s March 15-16 edition, congressional term-limit applications have made their way through 10 states. An additional 24 states are needed to pass applications in order to call a convention to prepare the amendment.

The nonpartisan nonprofit group U.S. Term Limits says 19 additional states have passed applications lumping congressional term limits with other subjects, but how successful it will be to extract term limits and make it a stand-alone issue remains an open question.

Resistance regarding such a step could in the end help doom the overall effort.

The bottom line is that affirmative votes from three-fourths of the states — 38 — will be needed in order for the term-limits amendment to pass. Again, there is no guarantee that such votes of support will be possible.

Politicians never will vote to limit their terms of service, say many Americans, and purported term-limit efforts of decades past support that theory.

But will what is happening now in America bring change on the term-limits front, once and for all?

There is no guarantee, even if level of trust is at an all-time low.