From the OP:
This is clear to me. The constitution intended to safeguard, with checks and balances, against corruption. The students see Trump’s failure to divest as an opening for corruption, which the constitutional checks and balances have not prevented.
Okay. Great. But your comment said something different.
Now, let’s get to the central issue. You say “The constitution intended to safeguard, with checks and balances, against corruption.“ How do you know? Because, when I read the Constitution, I cannot find any language addressing “corruption.”
Of course, the failure to use the word “corruption” doesn’t necessarily mean the Constitution doesn’t have as its feature a “safeguard” against corruption. Perhaps the structure of the government in the constitution creates or has as a feature of its structure a “safeguard” against corruption. I’m not convinced, however, the Constitution has a “safeguard” against corruption.
So, explain to me how the Constitutional “checks and balances” creates a feature, specifically a safeguard, against corruption? And let’s be clear as to what the phrase “checks and balances” doesn’t appear in the Constitution. What the Constitution creates is what is determinative.
The phrase “checks and balances” must refer to what the text of the Constitution creates, and logically refers to the creation of three, independent, branches of government, with each branch having delegated to it certain and specific powers to exclusively exercise that the other branches of government may not exercise, with each branch given a power to potentially limit another branch of government.
Hence, the power to declare war and mobilize the militia, and armed forces, is reserved to Congress and a check on executive power to wage and engage in war. The power of the purse and requirement to fund the armed forces on a biannual basis by Congress is a potential check on the executive branch as commander in chief. Appointing ambassadors, cabinet members, etcetera, by the executive branch, is limited by the advise and consent, and vote to occur in the Senate.
Executive veto power is a potential check on Congressional law making power. Commander in chief is a limit on Congressional power to dictate and determine how the armed forces are to be used while engaged in war.
The power of judicial review is a potential limit on the other two branches of government vested to the judiciary.
So, how exactly do the “checks and balances,” as described above, in the Constitution, create a safeguard against corruption?
One more final point.
The constitution intended to safeguard, with checks and balances, against corruption. The students see Trump’s failure to divest as an opening for corruption, which the constitutional checks and balances have not prevented
An “opening for corruption”? Well, an “opening for corruption” is not the equivalent of corruption, and according to you, and suggested by the author, the Constitution “safeguards”’against the latter.
So, it seems to me, yourself, the students, and the misguided author of the article who is apparently misguiding the leaders of tomorrow, have jumped the gun! There presently not being “corruption” but a mere “opening for corruption” to occur, it seems to me then the allegedly failed safeguard hasn’t failed yet!