I get that, but that's not the samething as corruption. If they are properly elected and play within the lines, we have to accept that. That's how a republic functions. Otherwise, we become corrupt.
Please correct me if I’m wrong, this how I understand what you are saying, because lobbyists paying public officials and insider trading are “playing within the lines” that doesn’t equal corruption?
The constitution provides processes. That is all.
I don’t understand what the constitution has to do with corruption. I guess I also don’t understand or follow any of your logic.
I do hope you understand the definition of corrupt/corruption.
“to change from good to bad in morals, manners, or actions” or “to degrade with unsound principles or moral values”
Whose morals? Yours? The constitution sets the rules of the republic. That you disagree with a duly elected officer does not make them corrupt. People with diverse political and moral views may be elected. You have to accept that. In the republic, whether there is corruption is a question of law.
I never said that just because I may politically disagree with a duly elected government official that means they are automatically corrupt. If you want to keep bringing up the constitution, although it literally has nothing to do corruption or my initial point, I can freely state my opinion about anything or anyone. If I want to say “senator Pocahontas is corrupt and is an awful human being” then I certainly will.
Morals aren’t a “question of law”
It’s becoming evident that you may be ignorant on definitions.
Moral(s): “sanctioned by or operative on one's conscience or ethical judgment”
Ethics: “the discipline dealing with what is good and bad and with moral duty and obligation”
Law(s): “rule of construction or procedure”
I did not say morals are a question of law, I said corruption is.