I disagree with that interpretation of King v. Burwell. In that case you had a lengthy statute which used the phrase “established by a State” in several areas. The Court read those areas and determined that the plain meaning of the words as applied to those other areas would create a result that would undermine the complex statutory scheme and determined that the phrase was a term of art in the statute which applied to all exchanges.
Had it only had the section at issue to analyze, the text would have been plain.
Compare the 22nd amendment which is a short paragraph with no complex scheme. It serves only one purpose (as is relates to term limits). The word “elected” is in there and has a plain meaning. There are not thousands of pages of supporting law in which you can show that “elected” may have also meant “become.”
In any event, it is a dangerous construction of laws to handwaive away plain words and say, “No, this is what they really meant.” When you do that, a court is basically creating law instead of interpreting it. There is nothing to prevent Congress from recognizing this drafting error and repassing an amendment which comports to your understanding of it.
As I said, it is unlikely to become an issue, but if it would, a two term President has a very strong argument that he is allowed to become a Vice-President.
