it will require a constitutional amendment to have congressional term limits? (checking, i see that is the case:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Term_limits_in_the_United_States#Federal_term_limits)
which ain't going to happen.
the last time this was a kerfuffle, although i was initially in favor of it, i eventually concluded it was not a good idea.
first, there's no perfect solution to the problem.
second, there's only a limited number of good people. term limits lock out the good as well as the bad. i think, as a general matter, the bad are easier to get rid of through elections, rather then the device of term limits.
on balance, although term limits would keep some rascals out of office, i think the net effect over time will be to block more good than bad.
as for "voting everyone out"? i don't have a problem with that. as a practical matter, it's a very difficult thing to do; therefore, if it is done, the great weight of the will of the people in favor of such a result speaks for itself. that's what elections are for, enacting the will of the majority constrained only by the limits imposed on that will by the constitution.
speaking of which, it is a very interesting theoretical question why we should be constrained by the constitution, since none of us voted for it. arguably, there is no good reason we should be, other than the might-makes-right police and military power of those who now hold authority. in the 19th century, lysander spooner advanced the quite plausible argument that the constitution is not binding on anyone but the direct signers.
http://www.libertarianism.org/publications/essays/constitution-no-authority