The Senate and the American people both have a right to know whether Sessions will stand up to Trump and truly be the people’s lawyer, not the President’s. General promises aside, Sessions didn’t demonstrate this at his hearing, which means there’s no reason for anyone to think that he will be willing to say “no” to this President, even though - as Sessions himself has said - that’s exactly what an Attorney General sometimes needs to do.
You are here
Articles & Commentary
For weeks, President-elect Donald Trump has been assuring the American people that it would be easy for him to resolve the constitutional and conflict-of-interest problems posed by his vast business holdings. But, at his press conference Wednesday, he revealed just how wrong those promises were. Simple or not, Trump’s long-awaited plan does nothing to address the imminent collision between his presidency and the Constitution.
Since Trump refuses to sell his vast business holdings, these types of conflicts and the possibility of widespread corruption will hound him throughout his presidency. To preserve the integrity of the office of the president, Trump should reconsider and take the steps necessary to ensure that he - and the people who work in his Administration - are truly working for the people’s interest and not the president’s.
For an America about to live under its first CEO President—one whose administration has the serious potential to be the most corrupt in nearly 100 years—a rubber-stamp loyalist like Jeff Sessions is the last person the Senate ought to approve for the critical job of U.S. attorney general.
Donald Trump is less than a month away from swearing to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States,” but his method of doing business already reeks of self-dealing and conflicts of interest.
With Donald Trump’s inauguration less than a month away, there’s been a lot of talk in Washington about two topics: first, the unprecedented conflicts of interest posed by the Trump presidency and, second, the individuals Trump is nominating to fill important government positions. But one thing there hasn’t been sufficient conversation about is the intersection of those two topics — the conflicts of interest posed by Trump naming the heads of agencies that are, or may be, investigating him and his businesses.
There’s been a lot of talk lately about the many conflicts of interest posed by a Trump presidency. And rightly so. After all, these conflicts are a constitutional crisis in the making: unless Donald Trump sells his business interests before January 20 (and he’s thus far shown no willingness to do so), he will be in violation of the Constitution on the very day he takes the oath to uphold it.
There is much about the rise of President-elect Donald Trump that seems unprecedented in American politics and marked with uncertainty. But one aspect of Trump as a public official was foreseen and forewarned against since the very beginnings of our nation—the problem of his foreign entanglements and financial conflicts of interest.
A ruling striking down these districts would be an important victory not just for those challenging them, but also for our Constitution’s promise of equal political opportunity for all.
A key chapter in North Carolina’s long running attack on one of our Constitution’s most cherished principles—equal political opportunity for all regardless of race—comes to the Supreme Court next week. The pair of redistricting cases the Justices will hear (one from North Carolina, one from Virginia), which have gone largely unnoticed, will be an important test for the Roberts Court. In deciding these cases, it will be critical that the Court ensure that states respect the Constitution’s promise of equal opportunity for all, reflected in the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, and the Voting Rights Act.