"An obscure interpretation of the 22nd Amendment" like what?
I've decided to use the 22nd to demonstrate to people who don't know the difference between a political opinion and a legal opinion what the difference is.
"I'm entitled to my opinion."
Me: "You're entitled to your political opinion, you're not entitled to have whatever legal opinion you want to have."
"What's the difference?"
Me: "A political opinion is an opinion a person has about what the law SHOULD BE. A legal opinion is an opinion about what the law IS. Take the 22nd Amendment: if you think it was a mistake and it should be repealed, so that presidents can run for third terms and fourth terms and even fifth terms, that is your political opinion and you have a right to think that and to speak about it to try to persuade other people to agree with you. Or you can believe the opposite, which is that the 22nd was an excellent idea, it should not be repealed. You have a right to either of those political opinions. But if you have an opinion that nothing has to be done to the 22nd in order to give a former President - say, Barack Obama - the chance to run for President again, that is a legal opinion of yours. If you think Joe Biden might withdraw from the election this year, soon, and at the Democratic National Convention, the party can - it would be permissible to - nominate Obama, and he could get elected to a third, nonconsecutive term, then that would not be your political opinion, it would be your legal opinion; you are not entitled to have that opinion. Almost everyone else would tell you that you are wrong, you don't know what you're blathering about, and that you are making a fool of yourself. You simply don't have a right to think that and to say it. That's the difference between a political opinion and a legal opinion."
