Monday, December 5, 2016

Why should Trump sell off his businesses?

In the early days of our country, those who were our leaders had businesses. They weren’t corporations, but they certainly were rather large for the times. George Washington had many businesses, one of which was making whiskey, and Washington made decisions that benefitted his whiskey business by making it hard, almost illegal, for the average person to make whiskey themselves without the government coming after you. This lead to the infamous Whiskey Rebellion. Google it if you're not familiar with it. Does anyone hold this against Washington today? Not one bit. It’s just a footnote in history.

Jefferson had a large plantation and many slaves. It could be said that Jefferson could have favored policy that benefitted his plantation and his slave holdings. Did anyone ask Jefferson to divulge of all of his holdings when he became president? Of course not. That was not how things were understood in early America. In early America, our leaders were meant to be citizens, not career politicians.

Why should Trump sell all of his businesses? If Trump passed legislation that required people to use Trump’s services, or if he used his position to purchase land that would not otherwise be available to him, or if he funneled money through his business (like Hillary has been doing with her foundation), then there would be a conflict of interest. However, if Trump took a pro-business stance that helped all businesses, his included, then what is wrong with that? America elected a businessman.

There are many who think this will place Trump in a constitutional conflict as the constitution has a provision about accepting foreign money. The theory on this is that if Trump accepts any money through his hotels from foreign governments, who I suppose may rent rooms from Trump, that this would throw him into a position rife for impeachment.

The section in question is found in section 9, Article I of the Constitution.
 "No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State."  

I have read up on this and there’s a good piece in the New York Times about this. You can read about it by clicking HERE. In short, George Washington accepted two gifts from France without consulting Congress and nothing happened to him. It seems the law is on Trump’s side, even if some of our citizens aren’t.

What is truly lacking in this country is a good understanding of the founding of America. A good history of the early years, an understanding of why things were designed the way they were, and just civics in general is sorely lacking in America. When I was younger, I remember arguing with my father about the way things should have been instead of why they were the way they were, and Dad told me that I would have made a good shit-house lawyer, meaning, someone who could argue a point quite well, even if the facts of the matter weren’t on my side. That’s what we see a lot of these days due to our woeful lack of civic understanding.

In short, should Trump not divest all of his business interests, while it may seem inappropriate to those who don’t understand historical precedent, it is not illegal.
 
 

No comments: