It is a useful distinction when considering possible rehabilitation. In general conversation it’s just weird.

It’s never been tested, so it is an open question. Not many people would be bold enough to try, and I don’t think Trump actually will either, but eventually this will go to the Supreme court.

The main problem is, at the time the 22nd was written, there were plenty of cases of presidents who weren’t elected to the office, so why would the text specify only the electoral pathway if it were meant to cover all possible pathways? Even in the most broad reading (no elected official can become president after having been elected president twice), there remain appointed positions within the line of succession - namely secretary of state - that would completely avoid the election clause.

I agree with you that the intent of the 22nd was to ensure a 2 term limit. Unfortunately the language is not that definitive and the current administration has little concern for following the unwritten rules.

Not quite… the constitutional requirements to be president are simple: Natural born citizen, 35+ years old, and US residency for at least 14 years.

It is an open legal question whether and how the 12th and 22nd interact to determine eligibility. The intent seems clear, but the language of the 22nd very plainly concerns only election to the office, not assumption of it.

So the constitution doesn’t actually prohibit anyone from serving more than 2 terms as president, it prohibits someone being elected to the office of president more than twice (or once if they assumed office for more than 2 years of someone else’s term.

In 2029 Trump could be elected as speaker of the house and then Vance and Dr. Evil resign as POTUS and VP and bam, Trump round 3.

Trump could also be directly elected to the Vice Presidency, though the legal ground there is shakier given the 12th amendment.

Ultimately, SCOTUS would need to weigh in because there is enough ambiguity in the constitution to allow for just the scenarios above.

Good thing SCOTUS is chock full of no-nonsense nonpartisan jurists of the highest integrity.

UN votes are largely symbolic, they have no actual policy function in almost all cases - member states must create and ratify separate treaties for that.

Removing the veto just leads to the veto-holders even more flagrantly undermining the UN’s authority.

Liberal Democratic Party is the name of the party, they are conservative in Japanese politics.

‘liberal’ in general political discourse doesn’t mean ‘left-wing trending towards communist’ as it is used in American communication, it is simply the historical opposing view to absolutism (e.g. Absolute monarchy). Liberal thought centers around individual freedoms; modern-day conservatives advocate for permissive individual freedoms by limiting government’s role in as many facets of life as possible (in theory, real parties and platforms have little to do with their marketing). Modern-day liberals advocate for positively identfying and enforcing freedoms through law. Illiberal thought is common in the west, and advocates for limiting individual freedoms for one reason or another - Germany’s prohibitions against Nazi speech, and the US’s restrictions on recreational drugs are examples of illiberal policies.