FLASH
Shkruar nga Alan Dershowitz 
How can a two-term president serve beyond the constitutional limit without being elected?
The 22nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution leaves open several possible ways in which a two-term president could serve all or, at least, part of a third term, even without being elected by popular vote.
In the form in which it was ratified, the text of this amendment prohibits a two-term president from being "elected" to a third term, but does not prohibit him from "serving," "acting," or "holding" that office.
In fact, the amendment's drafters explicitly rejected the categorically exclusionary language, which would have made it constitutionally impossible for a two-term president to continue to hold the Oval Office.
Instead, they accepted a compromise that created a much bigger void than the new ballroom in the East Wing of the White House. This does not mean that President Trump will actually run for a third term.
He has told the media that he will not do so. However, this means that there are circumstances, with low probability but still possible, in which a two-term president could ascend to the presidency without being elected by the American people for a third term.
One scenario is this: imagine the United States is the subject of a major terrorist attack, in which both the president and the sitting vice president are killed. Neither the Speaker of the House nor the president-elect are qualified to assume the duties of the president during such a crisis.
A successful two-term president, yes. A bipartisan public would want him to serve again. Would the 22nd Amendment absolutely prohibit a two-term president from serving to the end of the assassinated president's term?
The 22nd Amendment certainly does not specifically address this scenario, or others that might occur in our unpredictable world. Because of the inherent ambiguity of the 22nd Amendment, and because some partisan analysts supported the idea of President Trump seeking a third term, I decided to write a short book, analyzing the issue from an academic and nonpartisan perspective.
As soon as the book was announced, I received criticism for “putting ideas” into the heads of those who want the current president to seek a third term – an idea that one of my former colleagues at Harvard University considered “unimaginable.”
Well, that's not how I decide what to write (or think). In fact, the very text of the 22nd Amendment tempts, even compels, you to think, debate, and perhaps reconsider its words.
I have carefully studied the history of the 22nd Amendment and have come to three conclusions. First, the original purpose of the amendment was to prevent a two-term president from serving a third term.
Second, the drafters of the amendment initially proposed language that would have achieved that goal.
Third, they rejected that language and agreed to a text that leaves open the possibility that a two-term president could serve, under certain circumstances, for a third term in which he is not elected by vote.
These conclusions create a conflict between different modes of constitutional interpretation. Textualist analysts rely exclusively on the text of a constitutional amendment, regardless of its intent.
Others argue that, if the text is ambiguous, then the intent should determine its meaning. However, there are still others who argue that, even if the text is clear, its clear intent should prevail.
In this case, both the text and the intent seem clear. But they point in opposite directions. The text leaves open the possibility of a third term in exceptional circumstances, although not very likely. Meanwhile, its spirit, or the intent of the legislators, seems to exclude this possibility.
This conflict between text and intent merits discussion and perhaps clarification of the 22nd Amendment through an additional amendment. If the intent is as clear as it seems, it should be fairly easy to change the text to provide clearly that a two-term president may not serve, under any circumstances, for a third term.
Of course, it would take time to fix the 22nd Amendment, so the debate over how it should be interpreted in its current form will continue for at least some time. It is unlikely that this issue – and the conflict that underlies it – will become a reality, in part because many voters would reject any attempt to circumvent what they correctly understand to be the purpose of the 22nd Amendment.
Even before it was approved, many voters who voted for Roosevelt's second term were against breaking tradition and seeking a third term (despite the fact that most of the world was at war).
They were likely to vote even more in numbers against a two-term president, whom they believed was violating a constitutional amendment./ Prepared by: Pamphlet from “The Spectator”
Kujt i duhet nje 86 vjecar, e ne perfundim te atij mandati 90 vjeç. Kaq genius eshte ky? Nuk ka tjeter udheheqes SHBA?