Who is whose “Commander”?

A President of: of XXII with “No person shall be elected to the
office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the
office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a
term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected
to the office of the President more than once.  But this Article shall
not apply to any person holding the office of President when this
Article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person
who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President,
during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding
the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of
such term.”

A President of a Congress expected to have so much federal business
such that:  “The Congress shall assemble at least once in a every year,
and such Meeting shall be on…” showing up maybe as the only instructive
sentence that shows up twice in such Article?

A President of “Commander in Chief of the …” and yet a Congress to a holding of right and duty in declaration to war?

Ready for XXVIII?

How to Order anew to a more perfect Union?

To an Order to Posterity for greater domestic Tranquility on regulations of commerce?

To greater domestic Tranquility to “professional limitations” to our
office of the President and all spouses or “intimates” as relevant in
respect to contracts of marriage and such “union” of souls and to a more
perfect “holding”?

Again, in light of the times of the writing and ratifying of our
XXII amending, it helps to consider that such eightieth Congress was a
new Republican Congress of near as large and vast an electoral sweep as
we have just recently witnessed.

Amendment XXVIII ???  A bar to lawyers being sworn in, if elected,
as “lawyers”?  A natural professional conflict for our “Executive”?  A
Order to a more perfect Union respectful to domestic Tranquility and
Constitutional Posterity to a general Welfare so ordained to a willful
suspension of “status” as “lawyer” as an “officer of any court” or bar
association so dedicated to profession code to being prepared as
“lawyer” daily anew each day to be able to argue both sides of each
issue equally?

Can a lawyer sworn in as a lawyer actually profession execute such
duties of our office of the President and not have their “personality”
and “character” open enough to be Commander in Chief and of “the buck
stops here” presider to issues executive in pressing/denting we the
People?

Amendment XXVIII ???  A lawyer if elected to our office of the
President, and with any other “elected” to a co-holding in marrital
“two-fer” to those times acknowledged of “intimate holdings” as another
“acting as President” … shall willingly and willfully surrender their law
license until such time as they are no longer a holder of our Executive
Office and to such time that a “review committee” can be convened
to entertain a petition for new certification?  Such Article to be
expected of any other to a co-holding of office as per full respect
to marriage laws so naturally to an intimate ’holding’ and such as so
many since Martha Washington as acted as President, willfully? 

So our Constitution moved the conscript to a Congress meant to be so
involved that it needed only issue it as ordained to meet at least once
a year and even at such times as writs were issued and approved years
later to just change the date upon which it must meet, that ”once per
year”?

Being a “lawyer” is just to great a different “responsibility” or
“duty” than our office of the President that such seems now proven to be
a deterrent to clear and concise executive decision making.  Anyone? 
Anyone also see it a conflict that a President as a “lawyer” distracted
from listening more to the majorities and minorities for a sense of
right and wrong or direction and to a “professional” standard/duty to
rethink and rethink and lose time each day to being equally to both
sides and maybe to no decision?

{I lost my first draft of this post this morning after clicking
wrong icon before having ”saved” – will think about such for edits to
this less “dramatic” rewrite for tomorrow.}