just say, your point is that there s no ambiguity with having a list and not having president in it with having a history that suggests they were really focussed on local concerns in the south, with this conversation where the legislators actually discussed what looked like an ambiguity, you are saying there s no ambiguity in section 3? let me take the point specifically about electors and senators, if i might. yes. that might be important. presidential electors were not covered, because they don t hold an office. they vote. i m talking about the barred office part of this. exactly. the barred if you want to include everybody, first you have to suppress phi presidential electors. they wouldn t fall under any office. secretary of all, senators and representatives don t hold office either. the constitution tells us that and refers to them as holding seats, not offices. you want to make sure there s no doubt that senators and representatives are covered given the con
times. justice jackson: no. i m not going to that. let me just say so your point is that there is no ambiguity with having a list and not having president in it with having a history that suggest that they were really focused on local concerns in the south with this conversation where the legislators actually discussed you are saying there is no they vote. justice jackson: i m talking about the barred office part of this. jason murray: barred office is if you want to include everybody first presidential electors they are not offices so they wouldn t fall under any office. second of all senators and representatives don t hold office either. the tells us under the incompatibility clause refers to them as holding seats not offices. you want to make sure there is no doubt that senators and representatives are covered given that the constitution suggests otherwise, you have to include them. the constitution says the presidency holds an office as do members of this court. and