Donald Trump is living proof that even an established democracy must hold to the fine print of its constitution, rather than trust anyone elected to office to simply meet expectations. It doesn't require a stretch of the imagination to guess that Trump tells his advisors and legal experts the following: Don't tell me what used to be the norm. I will set the norms and precedents.
You tell me where the loopholes in the laws are, and what I can do to advance my objectives without overstepping the law too crudely. The norm isn't to appoint a Supreme Court justice five minuted before an election? If the law forbade that, maybe I wouldn't do it, but because it doesn't forbid it explicitly I'll present it as my democratic duty to ensure the bench is fully occupied.
Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter
Just as you helped me dodge taxes and I managed to pay a federal income tax equivalent to that of an average homeless person in Washington DC; just as I didn't reveal my tax-return reports, even though other presidents did so, tell me how I can stay in the White House even if someone else is elected president.
What seemed until recently like an unfunny joke about the president refusing to honor the election results is now a key focus of the American press. Trump, of course, could have put an end to this chatter by saying what any other democratic leader would have: I will respect the election results… but Trump has been swiping at the US Postal Service for quite some time now, trying to paint it as inept and incapable of properly delivering mail-in election envelopes.
Once he cast doubt over the competence of the postal service (which he appointed one of his donors to head), he moved to the next phase, saying if he loses the election it will only be because of election fraud, which will be perpetrated, for the most part, by skewing mail-in voting results. This week he went further, saying he would respect the election results only after the in-person votes are counted – but would ignore the mail-in votes.
News outlets and current affairs programs in the US have focused on just two issues recently – the appointment of Ruth Bader Ginsburg's replacement in the Supreme Court, and the options at Trump's disposal to remain in office even if the voters remove him. Just this past weekend we also learned how much the billionaire president has paid in taxes in recent years.
As someone who received 3 million fewer votes in 2016 than his Democratic rival at the time, Hillary Clinton; as someone who is being predicted in every poll to lose the November 3 election, he intends to appeal a result in which he loses by a relatively small majority. Because the constitution never foresaw rejectionism of this kind, it appears Trump has more than a few ways to prevent his ouster. The Republican majority in the Senate could certainly provide him the support he needs for such a move.
Beyond the professional questions that America's greatest legal minds are now examining, the problem is that the sitting president's remark, to only honor the result if he wins, is being accepted as not illogical because it's Trump and what hasn't he said already.
Trump, however, will eventually exit the stage, and what's truly worrying is that the US, which has been the beacon of Western democracy for over 100 years, is becoming a model for authoritarian regimes doing everything in their power to justify their pernicious policies.
The fast-approaching US election is turning into a test for America's status as the leader of the free world.
Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!
