Preserve, protect, defend, and violate the Constitution?

When Donald Trump places his hand on the Bible, he will be taking the sacred oath that Presidents Washington and Lincoln did before him. He will also, in that very moment, be in violation of that oath and the Constitution.

Last week, Americans watched in dismay at the ease with which the president-elect disregarded decades of precedent and tradition by refusing to effectively separate his many business holdings from the tremendous responsibilities he will soon inherit as president of the United States. It is now clear that Mr. Trump intends to maintain control of his vast business empire despite the bipartisan advice of government watchdogs and the Office of Government Ethics.   

{mosads}Walter Shaub, Director of the non-partisan U.S. Office of Government Ethics, took the unprecedented step calling Mr. Trump’s divestment efforts “wholly inadequate” and “meaningless.” Former ethics lawyers for the Bush and Obama administrations suggested that Mr. Trump’s plan to maintain ownership, but turn daily business operations over to his sons, fails to satisfy minimum ethical requirements and defies commonsense.

Even more troubling, the president-elect has shunned transparency and chosen to leave the American people in the dark regarding his financial holdings. He has dozens of corporations and LLCs around the world, yet refuses to release his tax returns. Without this knowledge, the true extent of his conflicts cannot be known. 

While the president-elect suggests that he is exempt from federal laws governing conflicts of interest, he is not above the Constitution.

We have already witnessed Mr. Trump’s luxury hotels become the new hot spot for special interests and foreign governments to display their loyalty to the president-elect. In one instance, the Kingdom of Bahrain rented a ballroom at one of his hotels for $100,000. Just last week, Mr. Trump admitted that he was offered $2 billion from a property developer in Dubai with whom he already has strong business ties. These examples underscore the countless ways in which the president-elect may violate the Constitution after he is sworn in, despite the fact he revealed last week that he was unaware of conflict requirements until “about three months ago.”

From day one, the American people will be confronted with a president whose personal interests are in direct violation of the Emoluments Clause in Article I of the Constitution. Every time the Trump Corporation derives a benefit from a foreign government, every time a profit is gained, loan received, permit granted or trademark licensed, the Constitution will be violated.

Simply donating his profits to the Treasury will not absolve Mr. Trump of these violations. The Constitution does not change to meet the personal desires of any one president.

You do not have to be a constitutional scholar to appreciate what our Founding Fathers sought to accomplish when they wrote the Emoluments Clause. Nations throughout history have always been vulnerable to the influence and manipulation of the powerful and wealthy, especially foreign governments. The interference of a foreign entity in our political system undermines our institutions and is a direct assault on our sovereignty.  

The president-elect’s choices also break the most sacred bond essential to good government: the trust of the people.

As a student of American history, I find Mr. Trump’s actions to be both unprecedented and irreconcilable with the spirit of our forebears. Like our Founding Fathers, the president must be willing to sacrifice his own self-interests for the interests of the American people.

Having watched, listened, and waited during this transition period, I was hopeful that the president-elect would comply with the minimum legal and ethical standards outlined in the Constitution and espoused by the Founders. However, if Mr. Trump continues to refuse to put our country before his own self-interests, he disqualifies himself from serving as the president of the United States and subjects himself to possible ethics violations.

Congressman Mark DeSaulnier represents California’s 11th District. 

The views expressed by authors are their own and not the views of The Hill.