In Reply to: Let me ask you this posted by DSCBruin on September 21, 2026 at 15:25:24
- "no person shall be elected to the office of the President more than *twice*" means more than twice consecutively. "But it doesn't say 'consecutively'" you'll say, to which the justices respond: "It's very clear from the context". "What context?" you'll protest. No worries. "In Marbury v Madison. the Supreme Court decided that only the Supreme Court has exclusive jurisdiction on these matters. I am the Supreme Court and you are not." Checkmate.
- "no person shall be *elected* to the office of the President more than twice" suggests an election but we all know that presidents are not elected by the public but selected by an electoral college. "But,", you're going to say "that's how elections work, we elect electors and electors elect presidents". No problem. Alito finds a court case from 1600s in England where some judge claimed that when an elected body picks a minister or something, that is a selection and not an election. Also Marbury v Madison.
- "no person shall be elected to the *office of the President* more than twice" but that was before Trump v United States where we decided that the President is not a president but a king. So there. Kindly turn in your visitor's badge before you leave.
- "no *person* shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice" means no full person, which does not apply to people who count as 5/3 of a person. "who declared him 5/3 of a person?" "The President did through his authority we granted him under Trump v US" But that wasn't what the decision meant" "A-hem, Marbury v, Madison". A president can't declare himself to be 5/3 of a person unilaterally". "Well, Trump v US". "But he didn't make that declaration at all". "He did, just not publicly".
All that said, I think the real rationale will look like this:
"Because."