To extend the absurdity further. If the President truly believes that if their rival winning the presidency would endanger democracy, it would be the _duty_ of the President to take that action.
This seems like a path towards civil war.
[edit]
Thinking about a way out of this mess. Here's a proposal.
Biden asserts that he has this right, writes up a new amendment taking the right away, gives a date by which he will take action if the amendment has not been passed.
(Then he should probably resign for effectively blackmailing the legislative branch)
The deterrent for such action is that government officials are under the obligation to disobey orders that are unconstitutional. But that loyalty to the constitution doesn't seem to be strong anymore. High positions in the US government are now occupied by the kind of people who would follow those orders without hesitation.
It seems unreasonable to require everyone who follows orders to be an expert on constitutional law. Especially when the highest court in the land can't seem to agree.
Is it permissible to disobey an order that you merely believe is unconstitutional? What happens when your superior asserts that it is constitutional?
This seems like a path towards civil war.
[edit] Thinking about a way out of this mess. Here's a proposal.
Biden asserts that he has this right, writes up a new amendment taking the right away, gives a date by which he will take action if the amendment has not been passed.
(Then he should probably resign for effectively blackmailing the legislative branch)