One of the fundamental measures of “legitimacy” of a government is how universal is the “Rule of Law” in that nation. Is no one above the law? Or are some animals more equal than others? Or in a nation where the average person commits three felonies a day, has the law become irrelevant?
Case in point, Democratic front runner (at least with the super delegates) Hillary Clinton has a lot to answer for with a private email server not the least of which is the public records keeping compliance. I honestly think the FBI is holding back because if she were to be elected President, then she could issue herself a pardon for crimes committed as SecState so instead of stepping into politics the FBI directors are seeing which way the wind blows. If she is elected and they DIDN’T indict her, she can owe them a favor, and if she isn’t elected and someone calls them out for “stalling” well that’s just the cost of good evidence gathering, isn’t it? The FBI has nothing to gain from seeking prosecution, and everything to gain from waiting until the election is over. So what does that do to the appearance of legitimacy in the United States? In case you were living under a rock, the BBC has a good rundown of emailgate: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-31806907
Another example is the Obama administrations support of Egypt and Thailand with military support in spite of US Laws that require the cutting of aid to nations that experienced a non-democratic coup d’tat. And the fact that you have to go to a news source from Witchita Falls of all places to find any commentary on this makes the mainstream press look complicit in a coverup. http://www.timesrecordnews.com/opinion/editorials/us-ignores-the-law-on-military-funding-2a7da9b0-e781-6be3-e053-0100007fcf0a-367030401.html
Need another example? The “affluenza” defense seems to work: http://time.com/4206296/affluenza-leopold-loeb/
How about the Title IX “gender discrimination” laws that can ruin a students life without ever going to criminal or civil trial? Well there is one state in the Union that tries to actually determine the truth before making judgement, which would be Tennessee, and as of last week a lawsuit was initiated to stop that “due process” nonsense.
The plaintiffs say that UT’s administrative hearing process, which is utilized by public universities across the state, is unfair because it provides students accused of sexual assault the right to attorneys and to confront their accusers through cross-examination and an evidentiary hearing in front of an administrative law judge. The administrative law judge who hears the case is appointed by Cheek, the lawsuit says. http://www.tennessean.com/story/news/2016/02/09/sweeping-sexual-assault-suit-filed-against-ut/79966450/
For those who aren’t familiar with the US Constitution, due process was enshrined in the 5th Amendment, and specifically levied against the States in the 14th Amendment. That the women are trying to deprive a group of black men the right to due process is deliciously ironic in how historically tone deaf it is.
To continue, the “confrontation clause” of the 6th Amendment specifically allows the accused to confront those witnesses accusing him in criminal court. If you are accusing a man of “rape” but not willing to go to the police about it, instead relying on a university to simply expel the male student well then case law says that the University does not have to give the accused the right to cross examine. Nor does it require that that the accused be denied that right: https://home.campusclarity.com/is-there-a-right-to-cross-examine-in-campus-sexual-assault-hearings/ Now in another delicious twist of irony, the lawsuit claims that UT creates a “hostile atmosphere” as it recently put out a “genderless” pronoun guide for students to use which faced enough immediate backlash that it was rescinded pending review : https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/09/08/u-tennessee-withdraws-guide-pronouns-preferred-some-transgender-people
And that brings us to the point of “legitimacy” or at least the appearance of legitimacy, there really is none. The Law is no longer there to be a fair arbiter of grievances, no the Law is there to take property from the poor and give it to businesses in order create tax revenue http://www.propertyrightsalliance.org/life-kelo-v-city-new-london-a2921 and you can google the fiasco that was Vera Coking versus Donald Trump if you wish.
The law has always been abused, and will continue to be abused in the future. But as public confidence erodes, little by little, day by day, eventually breaking the law will become a past time, and knowing who to bribe will become a life skill for even upright citizens.