Beyond term limits, beyond checks and balances... the need for Constitutional principles as limits to Executive Power

Our U.S. Constitution was designed in an era where values were more harmonized. A reading of the Federalist papers reveals that even those with bitterly opposing perspectives had vast similarities in upbringing. Social cohesion was enforced by habit, not by law.  

There were many habits (slavery, indentured servitude, disenfranchisement of women, abuse of Native American territories, illegal expansion into Mexican territories, fraud and corruption, religious persecution,...) that were beyond abhorrent and have rightly been outlawed. The beauty of the Constitution is not that it was created as a perfect document but rather that it was created as a set of democratic rules that enable the perpetual elimination of things that are wrong.

We are at another juncture in history when the bad habits that should have been corrected along the way have come back to haunt us. The habit of assuming the person who is elected President will be transparent, fair, balanced, and, adhere to the highest ethical principles of good governance was a habit based on hope rather than reality. We are desperate to believe that all who are tasked with the onerous responsibility of leading a Democratic nation full of diversity will feel obliged to rise to the occasion and become a transcendental leader. We hold the belief that a dedicated staff steeped in the history of the Office of the President can guide any individual to grow beyond personal flaws and emerge as the ultimate servant leader. 

Nixon was the first in recent history to shatter the belief that Executive Powers could not be abused. Clinton was the first to shatter the belief that ethical family values would not be contested, especially with public evidence to the contrary. We never made any corrections. We never set ground rules for proper decorum and we never limits on Executive Power. The most ironic part is this willful abandonment of self-scrutiny as a nation has happened during the very time during which we have very clear mandates for executives of all organizations (except the Executive Branch). 

Securities and Exchange Commission's (SEC) CODE OF ETHICS FOR CEO AND SENIOR FINANCIAL OFFICERS

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1020302/000106083004000239/exhibit_14.htm

Examples of Global Codes of Conduct 

PepsiCo 

https://media.corporate-ir.net/media_files/irol/10/109360/PBG_Static_Site/letter.html

EY (Ernst & Young)

https://www.ey.com/en_gl/global-code-of-conduct

US Military Code of Conduct 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_the_United_States_Fighting_Force 

None of these codes mean that wrong doing and malfeasance never occur. Wherever there are humans, there are bound to be problems arising from un-curtailed greed and ego. The reason codes are imperative is that, when wrong doing and malfeasance occur, there can be no statement to the effect: "there is no law against this." 

The U.S. has been spared the ravages of totalitarian dictatorships because the Constitution has prevented the military from taking over the other branches of government. However, despite checks and balances, there is no limit preventing the Executive Branch from taking over other branches of government, or, overriding Congress. 

Some say the Trump administration is God sent. The only extent to which I agree with this statement is the fact that God always sends warnings that one should wake up and use the intelligence bestowed in our brains and birth. Freedom is not for the complacent, freedom is for the diligent. We are aware enough to realize that things are gravely a muck. God will not come down from the heavens and save us from our own folly. 

All we need to do is simple: limit the power and scope of Executive Branch activities. 

Let us focus on the 9th Amendment of the Constitution (Bill of Rights) 

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. 

Question regarding what we believe and the rights retained by the people: 

Does the Executive Branch have the right to risk the lives of others domestically or abroad by repeatedly engaging in character defamation, demanding quid-pro-quos from allies, persecuting whistle-blowers, denigrating women, minorities and immigrants because of what they are (women, minorities and immigrants), constantly spewing vulgar and vitriolic rhetoric, overriding judicial decisions, wantonly pardoning convicts, attacking and censuring the free press, de-legitimizing decorated members of the military, unilaterally inititiating trade wars, and, using social media instead of proper deliberative channels to try to dominate public opinion?