3 ms·
The founders probably assumed people would elect ethical people so no ethics are in our system. Even businesses have rules about conflict of interest, hiring re
by b3ing 1y ago
The founders probably assumed people would elect ethical people so no ethics are in our system. Even businesses have rules about conflict of interest, hiring relatives, etc, but our government, nothing.
Without that it’s been failing and perhaps those ethics should rest on a popular vote and not representatives so it doesn’t get ruined, but then mob rule could always ruin it, which is why we have a republic that is slow to change with all these checks and balances but no ethics.
- leereeves 1y agoQuite the opposite. The founders knew leaders would be unethical, so they designed a system to divide power amongst the branches of the federal government and the states. Unfortunately, the leaders have been slowly eroding those divisions over time, consolidating power in the federal government and the imperial Presidency.
- cmurf 1y agoThe founders understood power. Their solution to monarchy was polyarchy, defined by a written constitution. A contract. Law. A republic is an empire of laws, not of men. And the oath of office, 5 USC 3331, is to support and defend the Constitution. Not a person.
- jfengel 1y agoIf you have no ethics, an oath of office is meaningless. Ultimately, men enforce the laws. They are only as rigorous as the enforcers decide to make them.
- cosmicgadget 1y agoI'm not so sure, they seemed awful critical of the British crown. I think what they didn't consider was a legislature that wouldn't wield its removal authority only days after being attacked by a violent mob. Or a Supreme Court that would invent an idea of executive immunity that renders all ethics statutes moot.
- cmurf 1y agoJohn Adams said the Constitution was intended for a moral people. The text isn't self enforcing, it takes people who will support and defend it. It may be we're out of virtue and don't deserve the Constitution anymore.