Seven years ago your analysis would have been summarily dismissed as outlandish but, alas, we have entered an age of the plastic, elastic Constitution, a time in which words on parchment mean whatever a closed elite deems them to mean, an age in which those who who are charged by the instrument with the defense of the instrument instead turn their talents and their powers to the distortion of the Constitution to make room for the advancement of special interests. Those charged by election under the Constitution with the administration under Article 2 have long ago turned their talents to the advancement of an ideology which seeks to subvert the Constitution.
So the words mean little and the party in opposition will do little. But the essential problem is not the wording of the Constitution which is clear enough for an honest man, the problem is that if we have come to the place where a brazen distortion of the Constitution should be perpetrated by the likes of Barack Obama to extend himself into a third regime, we will have an entire breakdown of civil society and we will probably have widespread violence if not civil war.
Barack Obama is not a man to shrink from civil war but I believe that his contemplation of it would be entirely focused on timing rather than on the morality of it.
Seven years ago your analysis would have been summarily dismissed as outlandishActually, fifteen years ago I was making the case that Bill Clinton could be Al Gore's VP, and I made the same case in 2004 regarding a Kerry-Bill Clinton ticket.
XXII does not make a person "ineligible to the office" in the XII Amendment sense, it makes them "ineligible to be elected" (whatever that means).