OMG! President Donald J. Trump.

Last week, I predicted, possibly rashly, that Hillary Clinton would win the November election. But what if I am wrong? Most people I speak to are repulsed and revolted by the thought. I think Trump has no redeeming features but, as one of my friends in America pointed out, there is an atmosphere of the French Revolution where politicians’ heads are the prize. As Trump is no politician, he is exempt.

However, I am not overly concerned by a Trump victory. Here is why. At the Democratic Convention, Khizr Khan asked Trump, “Have you even read the Constitution?” I do not go this far but some of his statements lead me to believe he does not understand it.

The bedrock of American democracy is separation of powers. The executive, the legislature and the judiciary are separate from one another and one branch of government cannot impinge on the others. The President cannot even walk into Congress without an invitation. The sole exclusion is that the Vice President has the right to preside over the Senate, with a casting vote in the event of a tie.

Let us accept Trump is victorious. In addition, let us assume a continued Republican majority in the House of Representatives but a Democratic majority in the Senate. What are the likely outcomes? Trump gives no indication that he understands how government works. He will be talking with very experienced politicians, who hold considerable power which a President cannot negate without negotiation.

Trump’s foreign policy statements include a threat to withdraw America’s membership from NATO if other members “do not pay their fair share.” The Constitution provides that the President has the right to make treaties with the advice and consent of the Senate. It is implicit that withdrawal from treaties is subject to the same condition. US senators are said to be the foreign policy experts in government. Is it likely that the Senate would endorse Trump’s proposal, especially when Russia is fomenting problems for the western allies? Trump would be stopped.

Trump’s plan to rid the world of ISIS is to carpet-bomb oil fields in Iraq, even though most of ISIS stolen assets is in Syria. He was questioned recently by CNN’s Anderson Cooper whether such a policy would be “destroying the wealth of Iraq” and in the process, hurting ordinary Iraqis. Trump responded, “No, there is no Iraq and there are no Iraqis.” The use of the military by a President is murky at best. Successive War Powers Acts have a lack of clarity. If Trump needs Congressional support for military action, would he get it?

The Donald has an unfortunate turn of phrase when talking about other countries and their leaders. He seems to support Putin in the hacking of Democratic e-mails. What would he have said had the Republicans been hacked? He wasn’t aware that Russia invaded Ukraine two years ago. If he talks to world leaders, telling them to pay their fair share and let’s bomb Iraq, does he really believe experienced statesmen will listen to him, let alone agree with what he says. Unless he learns some diplomacy, he will be shunned and marginalised. What will he do then? Take his toys and leave? America would become isolated and disrespected.

On the domestic front, Trump would be pressed hard about building “the wall” between USA and Mexico. The cost has been estimated in the hundreds of billions of dollars. How will Trump finance the project? Congress owns the purse strings. The House of Representatives might provide some help but will Americans want their taxes spent on the project, especially when they find out the true cost?

Then there’s the Muslim threat. Trump may be right in his allegation that America’s immigration policy is broken but he needs to highlight the policy failures of Homeland Security which need to be fixed and how to do it. Seeking to pass a law barring US entry on grounds of religion seems to be a breach of the First Amendment. Would the Supreme Court find for Trump, assuming he can get a law through Congress? If he tried to by-pass Congress using a Presidential executive order, I suspect the Court would quash it, even if Congress doesn’t.

My point is straightforward. Mr Trump cannot bulldoze his way through Congress and the Supreme Court. Franklin Roosevelt was rebuffed by a Democratic controlled Congress in 1936 when he introduced his plan to increase the number of Supreme Court judges. If Trump doesn’t know it yet, he will find out quickly that he will become a presidential eunuch unless he makes overtures to Congress. “I am the only one who can fix things” has the hollowest of rings. And failure to understand the Constitution and how it works will hole his presidency below the water line.

 

Last week in Columbus, Ohio, Trump said he feared that the election would be “rigged.” I cannot recall such a statement by a major party nominee in modern history. His words: “I’m afraid the election is going to be rigged, I have to be honest.” Trump repeated the charge on Monday night on Fox News, saying: “November 8th, we’d better be careful, because that election is going to be rigged. And I hope the Republicans are watching closely or it’s going to be taken away from us.”

In one way, I agree with Trump. A Presidential election is rigged. It is the fault of the Founding Fathers. They did not trust the people with the election of a President, thus the Electoral College was created. On Election Day, when American voters go to the polls, they will actually be voting for an Elector, who has the right to vote as he wishes. These days, Faithless Electors are a myth but an Elector could vote against his or her State’s choice. Furthermore a candidate can win the popular vote but lose in the Electoral College. It has happened four times, the last being 2000 when Bush beat Gore, amid all kinds of irregularities in Florida. The essential point is that the rules apply to both candidates. Trump can’t scream ‘foul’ at a system which has been in place since the birth of the United States.

However, I doubt this is the point Trump made. Regrettably, he provided no evidence in support of his allegation until yesterday, when Trump alluded to a few court cases across the country where restrictive laws requiring voters to show identification were thrown out. Those decisions, he said, could open the door to fraud in November but without explaining why. Instead, he said: "'If the election is rigged, I would not be surprised. The voter ID situation has turned out to be a very unfair development. We may have people vote ten times.”

The Washington Post article opined that the term “rigged” defied norms of politics. Trump taps into fears long predating his campaign. One is a growing but unsubstantiated worry that elections are being stolen. Not for the first time, a Trump habit of making wild, unproven allegations are bound up in his claims for honesty.

From the beginning, American elections have been sprinkled with election fraud. Just research the 1800 election between Adams and Jefferson. In the early part of the 20^th century, political bosses continually used ruses such as impersonation and ballot box stuffing to make an election certain. In 1960, Mayor Daly of Chicago fixed the result for Illinois for Kennedy. The Republicans in 2000 used all kinds of fraud to ensure Florida was in the Bush column.

Sometimes, American elections seem to resemble the national sport. I can hardly wait for Trump to utter the mantra, “vote early and vote often.” In conclusion, Trump should put up or shut up about election fraud. As he has no viable evidence to prop up his claim, he should give it up before he makes himself look an even bigger fool.