I would like to the pose the following questions to current supporters of President Trump.

If say, Sen. Elizabeth Warren was our next president and failed to divest from any business interest, would that be acceptable?

If she failed to divest, would you be comfortable with her openly providing free advertisement for her businesses while in office?

Would it be permissible that she failed to reveal her most recent tax returns?

How about if Warren’s husband, Bruce Mann, openly comingled politics and business, giving at least the appearance they were profiting off the presidency — would that suffice?

Obviously, there is but one answer to the aforementioned questions: No!

Opposition to such behavior should not be based on Warren’s politics, but rather preserving the integrity of the office of president. All reflect a violation of the republican character on which the nation was founded.

It has been reported, since President Trump assumed office, the Trump organization has secured dozens of trademarks from foreign governments and pursued possible projects in Scotland and the Dominican Republic. Moreover, many of his properties have enjoyed free publicity from the president’s well-publicized visits at taxpayer expense. Lobbyists and power brokers frequent the Washington hotel that bears his name.

Because the president has not sold off his vast business interest completely, which spans more than 20 countries, he remains vulnerable to charges that his policies could be influenced by his business interests.

Earlier this year, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington released a 36-page report entitled “The Most Unethical Presidency: Year One.”

The report stated: “For virtually every decision President Trump makes, from taxes to environmental regulations to foreign policy, the American people cannot be sure whether he made his decision in the public interest or to benefit his bottom line.”

In our current bifurcated political climate, it is easy to embrace or dismiss the report’s findings depending on one’s orthodoxy. But that misses the point. Do we want a cloak of secrecy to be a permanent attribute of the office of president going forward?

Article I, Section 9, Clause 8 of the Constitution, also known as the Foreign Emoluments Clause, prohibits the federal government from granting titles of nobility and restricts members of the government from receiving gifts, emoluments, offices or titles from foreign states without the consent of the United States Congress.

It was designed to shield officials against so-called corrupting foreign influences. As Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist 22, “One of the weak sides of republics, among their numerous advantages, is that they afford too easy an inlet to foreign corruption.”

None of this suggests any wrongdoing on the part of the president per se. But his behavior, inoculating himself from the sunshine of ethics, reflects an affront to the republican character of the nation.

This is not a partisan issue, but rather one that maintains our democratic guardrails. Selective concern, based on party affiliation, does not suffice. That’s called political hypocrisy.

Should any presidential candidate henceforth release his or her tax returns? Is it the right of the American people to know if the individual they are prepared to support has potential conflict of interest with a foreign entity? Or should we assume that he or she would inherently do the right thing?

It is rare, if ever, that a president willfully relinquished powers enjoyed by the predecessor. In 2008, candidate Barack Obama criticized the extension of presidential powers to President George W. Bush, but once in office he did little to revoke them.

This is uncharted territory that no democratic republic should entertain. Our democratic guardrails exist with good reason. They reflect the infinite wisdom of the founders. There should be no exception to such precepts.

If this behavior is acceptable for the individual that one supports, why would the expectation change simply because someone different holds the office? This how the office of the president is systematically devalued.

The office was not designed to serve at the pleasure of its inhabitant. Actually, it’s the reverse.