Term limits

[Robert Sheridan]

A question regarding the constitutionality of term limits legislation,  
please:

I believe that there is a principle of Congressional lawmaking which  
holds that today's legislature may not bind tomorrow's.  Tomorrow's  
may repeal yesterday's.  A constitutional amendment would be required  
to bind the hands of future legislators.

The New York City Council has voted to enable NY Mayor Michael  
Bloomberg (and some other elected officials) to run for a third term,  
despite a "term limits law twice approved by voters,"  according to  
today's NYT.

Can a representative city counsel legally vote to override a vote of  
the general public?

Can today's public bind the hands of a future public, absent a  
constitutional amendment to some constitution, say the State of New  
York's, or NYC's city charter in this case?

Should the voting public vote into office a candidate in violation of  
the terms of a prior voter-approved term limit law (not amounting to a  
constitutional amendment), which vote should take precedence, the  
earlier or the later?  I'd also thought that later expressions of a  
legislature were deemed to override earlier expressions, acting as an  
implicit repealer.  Why wouldn't this principle of later expression  
apply in the case of two contrasting votes by the general public?

It seems one thing for the public to overrule itself, and another for  
the subset, its agent (the city council), to overrule the public.   
Yet, Mayor Bloomberg couldn't have got on the ballot without the  
enabling legislation, could he?

I hate again to plead ignorance (yet the fact remains...), but has the  
Court upheld term limits?  I suspect it must have, but I don't know  
the reasoning.

Thank you.

rs
sfls