this post was submitted on 04 Sep 2025
740 points (99.1% liked)
Progressive Politics
3195 readers
840 users here now
Welcome to Progressive Politics! A place for news updates and political discussion from a left perspective. Conservatives and centrists are welcome just try and keep it civil :)
(Sidebar still a work in progress post recommendations if you have them such as reading lists)
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
OR, we could flip it and forbid CEOs that have a financial self interest from becoming president. Didn't they used to have to put things in a trust? Guess we threw that rule out.
I think the founding fathers are often brought up because they forged the document we used to think was important for these situations and there actually used to be some (not all) good stuff in there. But I hear you that times have changed.
It was just decorum putting assets in trusts for prez, modern era laws did restrict other officials to some degree.
In 2016 the Republicans just refused to honor those laws and nobody held them to account, now they are not really bothering to pretend. Open corruption.
The Constitution does forbid emoluments, but that is ignored by our captured (in)justice department.
I'm not even fully sure it was good at the time? Like I agree, it was a document of the time, but even of the time it isn't a very good document.
You make good points but I think you're missing some of the good things or at least an attempt at good things like having three branches of government to use as checks and balances. Yeah, it's not working now but I think it was a worthy attempt.
I also think the amendments were pretty good. Freedom of speech, unlawful searches and seizures, no quartering of soldiers, voting Rights, etc. I mean it was a different time. Did any country give poor people the same rights as the wealthy? I know freedom of religion wasn't universal.
A lot of these rules have been circumvented, but I'm not certain they could have foreseen this and that is the nature of the complaint, isn't it?