Yes, but not solely from the text of the 22nd Amendment, which is what you and others are repeatedly asserting. This literal parsing of the 22nd is not what the USSC would or should do.
There was a case called "Marbury vs. Madison" in 1803, which granted the USSC the right to interpret the meaning of the Constitution and its provisions, and that's what the USSC has been doing for the last 200 years.
That's also what they'd do with the 22nd, should Bill Clinton be insidious enough to actually press the issue.
If such was their intent, they did not write it down in the Constitution.
Nor did they need to. That's why the USSC exists.
"Elected" has a specific meaning.
Correct. And the Vice-president is "elected" as a subordinate office to the President. Not independent, not parallel, but subordinate. The office of the Vice-president draws its powers and its constraints from the office of the President.
You are the one engaging in Clintonian parsing, as opposed to confining yourself to the meaning of the plain text.
The USSC will not "confine itself to the meaning of the plain text." It will confine itself to the text, to intent, to precedent, going back even to the first Constitutional Convention, the Federalist Papers, and the interpretive guidelines established in Marbury vs. Madison.
The USSC is not a bunch of monkeys charged with correctly parsing or deparsing sentences and grammar. It has an intepretive function which draws from U.S. history, legal intent, and precedent.
And it is clear here that the 22nd's "two terms" means nothing more and nothing less than "two terms." The 22nd was the culmination of debate which began prior to 1787, and continued through Washington, Jefferson, and every president up to Franklin Roosevelt.
That is the spirit in which it would be considered, and not by your mechanical deparsing of grammars.
Never mind, I thought I was talking to a strict constructionist.