I am not disagreeing, but no matter how you frame it people are going to say the 22nd makes them “ineligible”, because the word fits.
But I think it is a really clumsy use of English to make the connection.
This is why legal documents have defined terms.
If Obama wanted to run in 2020 . . . . is he eligible to be president constitutionally?
People may say it, but the only thing that matters is what the constitution says.
If the Democrat nominee chose Obama as his running mate and they won, Obama would be the VP.
For that matter if Trump chose him and they won, Obama would be VP.
He is not eligible the be ELECTED president again.
He is NOT eligible to be president again.
The other amendment says only those eligible to be president can be vice president.
The two work in tandom.
The definition of eligibility in the 12th was specific and known; the 22nd does not include that word, that is something you interpreted. English is not always eloquent and why terms have to be defined.
He IS eligible to be president again, as long as he gains the presidency in a way other than being elected president.
Where does the 22nd reference the 12th? And where does the 22nd include the word eligible?
It would be a fun court case, this is the stuff lawyer talk about at 2 am after a few beers.
I say the 22nd makes him disqualified 
But still eligible.
English is fun.
It probably would never be ruled on by a court.
I’ve posted this two or three times in this thread.
SCOTUS refused to hear the case challenging Obama’s birther eligibility to be president. It ruled that no one had standing to bring the suit because there was no proof of any injury involved.
Not really.
12 comes before 22.
So when the 12th amendment was passed . . . Contitutional requirements for president were 1) Natural Born Citizen. 2) resident within the US for 14 years. 3) 35 years old or older.
When the 22nd came along. Constitutional requirements were 1) Natural Born Citizen 2) resident within the us for 14 years. 3) 35 years old or older. 4) Served less than 2 terms in office.
#4 is not true.
Amendment 22 says cannot be elected president more than twice. That is not the same as served less than 2 terms.
I understand the logic.
I just don’t agree that it is clear the 22nd can be defined as “eligibility”. That term could have been used. It wasn’t.
I see how it can be read the other way.
Vapid comment.
I understand there is a pecking order as to who becomes President if the incumbent is no longer able to continue as President. Obviously the VP is the fist in that pecking order. I believe there are others after the VP. Is it your assertion that a person who has been elected President twice previously would be ineligible to hold any of those positions that are included in the pecking order?
Whilst we are playing the what if game how about this scenario based on the assumption he is able to run as VP. He runs as VP and the day after his running mate becomes president, that person resigns and Obama basically is President for almost 4 years. Rinse and repeat again for next presidential election.
No where does the constitution say he can’t serve as POTUS again. He is still eligible for the office. He just can’t be elected to serve.
