Trump has made my political science students skeptical — of the Constitution

RocksInMyHead

God is innocent; Noah built on a floodplain!
May 12, 2011
6,813
7,420
PA
✟317,269.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
And yet, not one is charged - not one is sustained - not one is being spoken of by all the Democratic Leadership calling for his impeachment. Why? It would be the perfect basis for impeachment.

When will we stop looking at media as accurate and honest?
Conflict of interest is an ethical matter, not a legal one, so he can't be charged for it. Congress could certainly decide that it meets the impeachment standard of "high crimes and misdemeanors," but I think they would have difficulty prosecuting it.

Where can they go to stay without paying rent?
Properties not belonging to Donald Trump?
And the rent was Paid to the resort - not the President.
The President owns the resort, so yes, the money is being paid to the President.
I own McDonald's stock - When Mr. Obama had lunch at McDonald's - was he lining my pocket?
In a roundabout and very small way, sure. However, given that you are not Mr. Obama and you and Mr. Obama have no personal or business relationship (beyond his purchases at McDonalds), there is no conflict of interest.
 
Upvote 0

Arcangl86

Newbie
Dec 29, 2013
11,076
7,405
✟343,217.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Green
In a roundabout and very small way, sure. However, given that you are not Mr. Obama and you and Mr. Obama have no personal or business relationship (beyond his purchases at McDonalds), there is no conflict of interest.
Obama is an interesting example of this because he paid out all his relatively minor investments and put them into treasury securities, so there was no question about a potential conflict.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: RocksInMyHead
Upvote 0

NotreDame

Domer
Supporter
Jan 24, 2008
9,566
2,493
6 hours south of the Golden Dome of the University
✟505,942.00
Country
United States
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
“Yet students wonder whether the president’s failure to divest himself of various investments has specifically invited such corruption. And they wonder how Americans might even discover evidence of such corruption, given his concealment of his financial records, even after Congress has demanded it.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outl...itution/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.fe0381e29fa8


The kids get it.

The author’s analysis confuses the Federlist Papers’ predictive power with the Constitution itself. I’ve had occasion myself to read the Federalist Papers, including what they predicted would occur, and realize they surely did miss the mark as what they predicted did not transpire. But this is hardly an indictment of the Constitution and my quarrel isn’t with the Constitution but with the Federalist Paper’s prediction that never transpired.

The author misses the fact the “checks and balances” have been very present during Trump’s first term, as the judicial branch has impeded some of his signature EOs. Congress has refused to accede to some of his funding demands. Presently, with a Democratic majority in the House, additional checks on the executive have materialized. The Constitutional system is operative despite Trump, which is a testament to the resilience of the Constitution.
 
Upvote 0

Pommer

CoPacEtiC SkEpTic
Sep 13, 2008
16,346
10,240
Earth
✟137,598.00
Country
United States
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Democrat
The Constitutional system is operative despite Trump, which is a testament to the resilience of the Constitution.
Yahbut the seams are getting quite a workout.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Silmarien

Existentialist
Feb 24, 2017
4,337
5,254
38
New York
✟215,724.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
What does that mean being a liberal and centre leftist, that is very general?

I said a Common Wealth, not a Confederation. I can't really imagine Arizona or a neighbouring state invading California militarily or visa versa, because they were not economically joined at the hip.

Was there a common goal in the past?

You asked if I was a Democrat, which is a good deal more general than saying that I'm a center-left liberal. :p I believe that the government ought to exist primarily to safeguard the liberties of its citizens, but that the free market is inherently abusive and needs to be regulated.

Beyond that, I am not sure what you mean by "economically joined at the hip." Each state government does have its own economic policies--it's very normal to see different economic theories enacted at the state level. Obviously federal regulation exists, and there are questions concerning where the line ought to be drawn between federal and state power, but I'm not sure what precisely you're suggesting.

Was there a common goal in the past? I mean, the question of federal vs. local power goes back to Hamilton and Jefferson, but I'm thinking more about the culture wars. The moral reasoning engaged in on the right and the left have become completely irreconcilable.
 
Upvote 0

KCfromNC

Regular Member
Apr 18, 2007
28,632
15,950
✟484,211.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
And yet, not one is charged - not one is sustained - not one is being spoken of by all the Democratic Leadership calling for his impeachment. Why?
Man, that was a quick retreat from "there's no documented conflicts of interest" to "Donald's documented conflicts of interest are the dems fault".
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

RichardY

Holotheist. Whig. Monarchical Modalism.
Apr 11, 2019
266
72
34
Spalding
✟16,984.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
You asked if I was a Democrat, which is a good deal more general than saying that I'm a center-left liberal. :p I believe that the government ought to exist primarily to safeguard the liberties of its citizens, but that the free market is inherently abusive and needs to be regulated.

In the context of American politics, it is specific. Only really in Europe & Oceania is there a facade of different democratic parties. Was when you said that anti-democratic sentiment had been vindicated.

Beyond that, I am not sure what you mean by "economically joined at the hip." Each state government does have its own economic policies--it's very normal to see different economic theories enacted at the state level. Obviously federal regulation exists, and there are questions concerning where the line ought to be drawn between federal and state power, but I'm not sure what precisely you're suggesting.

Well California being the most fertile state in the nation, having a large debt affecting the other states in the union, subsides or otherwise. But a large political block vote. At 40 million people looking at a fair size European country level, but with no where near amount of land or resources California has. Could become it's own nation the NCD New Californian Democracy, or something. Smaller parties would have more say.

a common goal in the past? I mean, the question of federal vs. local power goes back to Hamilton and Jefferson, but I'm thinking more about the culture wars. The moral reasoning engaged in on the right and the left have become completely irreconcilable.

"We don't have a common goal anymore" So the common goal was to decide federal or state? That's more of a decision for the elite interests at the time.

What should a common goal be now?
 
Upvote 0

NotreDame

Domer
Supporter
Jan 24, 2008
9,566
2,493
6 hours south of the Golden Dome of the University
✟505,942.00
Country
United States
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
You clearly didn’t read the article. It doesn’t claim divestment is required by the constitution. That’s the point! Students are skeptical of the constitution because it hasn’t been able to safeguard us by requiring that Trump divest from his companies, among other reasons.

And your answer is a deflection. Removing yourself as a decision maker in a company is not divesting. Your links do not show that Trump divested from his companies.

Wait. Logically, how can the students be skeptical of a development the Constitution "has not been able to safeguard" against when the Constitution was neither designed or written for such a safeguard to exist? Specifically, it makes no sense for students to base their skepticism of the Constitution on, inter alia, the fact the document "hasn't been able to safeguard us by requiring that Trump divest from his companies" when "divestment" is not "required by the constitution." How does that work? How can be skeptical of the Constitution for the lack of a safeguard when the Constitution was never conceived or written for such a safeguard to exist?

Student: "I am skeptical of the Constitution because a safeguard that it was never conceived or written to produce has not materialized under the Constitution." Teacher, in summoning their best Chris Tucker impersonation from Rush Hour, "What in the he** did you just say?"

As for the "other reasons." The manner in which the author presented the material demonstrates the students' skepticism should be directed towards the Federalist Papers' missed predictions about the Constitution. The students quarrel is with the predictions that did not adequately materialize in the Federalist Papers.
 
Upvote 0

Sparagmos

Well-Known Member
Oct 19, 2018
8,632
7,319
52
Portland, Oregon
✟278,062.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Wait. Logically, how can the students be skeptical of a development the Constitution "has not been able to safeguard" against when the Constitution was neither designed or written for such a safeguard to exist? Specifically, it makes no sense for students to base their skepticism of the Constitution on, inter alia, the fact the document "hasn't been able to safeguard us by requiring that Trump divest from his companies" when "divestment" is not "required by the constitution." How does that work? How can be skeptical of the Constitution for the lack of a safeguard when the Constitution was never conceived or written for such a safeguard to exist?

Student: "I am skeptical of the Constitution because a safeguard that it was never conceived or written to produce has not materialized under the Constitution." Teacher, in summoning their best Chris Tucker impersonation from Rush Hour, "What in the he** did you just say?"

As for the "other reasons." The manner in which the author presented the material demonstrates the students' skepticism should be directed towards the Federalist Papers' missed predictions about the Constitution. The students quarrel is with the predictions that did not adequately materialize in the Federalist Papers.
From the OP:
“Yet students wonder whether the president’s failure to divest himself of various investments has specifically invited such corruption. And they wonder how Americans might even discover evidence of such corruption, given his concealment of his financial records, even after Congress has demanded it.”

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.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: RocksInMyHead
Upvote 0

bhsmte

Newbie
Apr 26, 2013
52,761
11,796
✟247,431.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
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.

The failure is with congress, that has oversight, not with the constitution.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Pommer
Upvote 0

RocksInMyHead

God is innocent; Noah built on a floodplain!
May 12, 2011
6,813
7,420
PA
✟317,269.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
The failure is with congress, that has oversight, not with the constitution.
The point is that the authors of the Constitution did not foresee that Congress would fail to perform its oversight duties and did not include additional checks. So yes, the failure is with Congress, but ultimately, Congress is established by the Constitution along with all of the other checks and balances in our political system, so the root failure is still in the Constitution.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Sparagmos

Well-Known Member
Oct 19, 2018
8,632
7,319
52
Portland, Oregon
✟278,062.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
The failure is with congress, that has oversight, not with the constitution.
I think the idea is that congress, a constitutional body, is an extension of the constitution, and that the check and balance system isn’t good enough.
 
Upvote 0

bhsmte

Newbie
Apr 26, 2013
52,761
11,796
✟247,431.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
The point is that the authors of the Constitution did not foresee that Congress would fail to perform its oversight duties and did not include additional checks. So yes, the failure is with Congress, but ultimately, Congress is established by the Constitution along with all of the other checks and balances in our political system, so the root failure is still in the Constitution.

So how would the constitution be changed, to assure congress was doing their duty?

Imo, the framers thought the voting process would come into play here, but we have cronies (on both sides of.the aisle), that have been there for decades and are only concerned with retaing power and their office.

What we need (IMHO) are term limits. If we had them, maybe they would be more interested in getting the job done while they can, vs staying in office for 30 or 40 years.
 
Upvote 0

Pommer

CoPacEtiC SkEpTic
Sep 13, 2008
16,346
10,240
Earth
✟137,598.00
Country
United States
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Democrat
I think the idea is that congress, a constitutional body, is an extension of the constitution, and that the check and balance system isn’t good enough.

Well, yeah, to a degree, the “check & balance system” is rather rusty, and in need of “tweaks”, about how much “politicians being politicians is A-OKAY but | < that’s the line that, if crossed, is clearly corruption”.
Acts (of Congress, I do not think that they’d need a Constitutional Amendment for this), could be passed for future* Presidents, to be required to at least put their financial holdings in a “real blind trust**” to ensure, for all of us, that their decisions are not weighted with personal, financial, concerns).
And if a blind trust is unworkable?
Liquidate your assets and buy US SAVINGS BONDS, then we can all be sure that you’d like to be around, in seven years, to roll them over!

*No criminal ex post facto laws, per the Grand Old Rag, (no disrespect in that, to the Constitution, intended, I assure you!).
**it seems that the President’s definition for “blind trust” is
You can’t see what I’m doing? Trust ME!”
 
Upvote 0

RocksInMyHead

God is innocent; Noah built on a floodplain!
May 12, 2011
6,813
7,420
PA
✟317,269.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
So how would the constitution be changed, to assure congress was doing their duty?
Not really sure - in the case of presidents divesting their assets though, I feel like that's pretty straightforward and potentially something that could just be written into the Constitution.

Imo, the framers thought the voting process would come into play here, but we have cronies (on both sides of.the aisle), that have been there for decades and are only concerned with retaing power and their office.
I agree that they thought the voters would do a better job of holding their representatives accountable. Unfortunately, that hasn't been the case. Perhaps requirements could be instituted to ensure that representatives fulfill their duties. For example, voting on a certain percentage of legislation brought to the floor, or a minimum number of days spent in the capitol and a minimum spent in their district (I'm just spitballing here). If the requirements aren't met, then you can't run for re-election and aren't allowed to hold the office again.

What we need (IMHO) are term limits. If we had them, maybe they would be more interested in getting the job done while they can, vs staying in office for 30 or 40 years.
I'm of two minds about term limits. On the one hand, I agree with you - having a limited amount of time in office would potentially motivate legislators to get things done. However, the downside is that because the US political system can be complex to navigate, you'd be handing a lot of power and influence over to career lobbyists.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

NotreDame

Domer
Supporter
Jan 24, 2008
9,566
2,493
6 hours south of the Golden Dome of the University
✟505,942.00
Country
United States
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
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!
 
Upvote 0