The wording is specifically that you need to be qualified to hold the office of the president, not to run for the office.

But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.

With qualifications to hold the office being:

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

So the phrasing of the 22nd created an issue:

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

Elsewhere it talks about eligibility to hold office, but the 22nd only refers to election.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-22/overview-of-twenty-second-amendment-presidential-term-limits

There’s also a similar issue with the speaker of the house, where eligibility isn’t as clearly defined as one might expect.

While the intent of the law was clearly to codify the previous pattern of capping it at two terms (and being spiteful to FDR) it’s phrased with enough ambiguity that it’s clear how they’ll argue it.

Possibly not the greatest example. The whole “Japanese internment camps” thing, as well as the (radically less controversial) suspension of habeas corpus for Germans captured on US soil.

More that it normalizes a return to military expansion of national borders.
Russia is trying to grow their territory by annexing neighbors.
China would plainly like to.
The US didn’t, which made the scales tilt towards Russia acting badly and unusually badly.

With the shift, Russia is just the only one acting on a policy item that all the major powers have.

And like clockwork: https://apnews.com/article/russia-putin-arctic-trump-greenland-2dbd00625c2c0c3bd94a2c96c7015b69

“Putin says US push for Greenland rooted in history, vows to uphold Russian interest in the Arctic”

Speaking at a policy forum in the Artic port of Murmansk, Putin noted that the United States first considered plans to win control over Greenland in the 19th century, and then offered to buy it from Denmark after World War II.

“It can look surprising only at first glance and it would be wrong to believe that this is some sort of extravagant talk by the current U.S. administration,” Putin said. “It’s obvious that the United States will continue to systematically advance its geostrategic, military-political and economic interests in the Arctic.”

The US and Greenland; Russia and Ukraine: it only matters that it’s rooted in history, right?

“this is the fault of the democrats and Joe Biden. If they hadn’t messed everything up we wouldn’t need to fix it like this”.

They’ll say that and their constituents will listen. Remember, these are people who voted for the guy who wrecked the economy over the guy who made progress improving it because the economy was bad and they wanted it to be better, like what the first guy wrecked.

And we already have a safety valve for when conventional ethics is standing in the way of vital research: the researchers test on themselves.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-experimentation_in_medicine

If it’s that vital, surely you would do it to yourself?

It’s not terribly common because most useful research is perfectly ethical, but we have a good number of cases of researchers deciding that there’s no way for someone to ethically volunteer for what they need to do, so they do it to themselves. Sometimes they die. Sometimes they make very valuable discoveries. Sometimes both.

So the next time someone wantz to strap someone to a rocket engine and fire it into a wall, all they have to do is go first and be part of the testing pool.