"The so-called "solutions" to the Trump conflict of interest issue are no solutions at all. Looking closely at them reveals they are all simply different levels of trouble."

Why don't we have tougher rules? The most obvious reason is the United States has never really been in a predicament like this with such an entrepreneurial and competitive business owner in major office. The closest we've experienced to something like this were the 12 years Michael Bloomberg served as Mayor of New York City.

Bloomberg made promises that he would not take an active role in running his business during those years, a promise most reports say he did not keep, but there were also never any real accusations and evidence that Bloomberg was guilty of any conflict of interest during his time in office. And while New York City carries out the equivalent of many nations' commerce in any given year, comparing the position of mayor to President of the United States is no real comparison at all.

Another reason why we don't have more effective rules in place is because the laws the U.S. uses to curb the financial activities of our chief executive were likely directly derived from the relatively few safeguards the British aristocracy attached to their kings in the Middle Ages. No one at that time expected the kings of England to cease trying to increase their wealth and property while on the throne. The lords simply wanted to make sure the king did not unfairly infringe on their agrarian territorial lands and/or take property from them and them alone.

That is why the only major charge to the British monarchs found in Magna Carta and the King's Coronation Oath are promises the king must make to respect the rule of law in regards to property, including and especially the property of the Church. And again, the only property that was really safe was that Church property and the property of the lords. Otherwise, it was pretty much all fair game for the king as far as the middle and lower classes went.

The so-called "solutions" to the Trump conflict of interest issue are no solutions at all. Looking closely at them reveals they are all simply different levels of trouble. The Wall Street Journal recently published an editorial calling on President-elect Trump to liquidate his assets as soon as possible. But, aside from the excessive amount of time that would take with so many real estate holdings involved, that process is ripe for corruption as any private buyer or foreign government could simply overpay for an asset, agree to buy an otherwise unwanted asset, or trade some other kind of personal favor during such a process.

Even if the sale were carried out by entirely independent managers, Trump's properties are so well known that keeping the facts on who buys them and for how much is a pipe dream. This is the same problem we'd encounter if Mr. Trump handed over his business to a similar type of outside manager just while he's in office. And if he simply allows his children to run his company, the potential for currying favor with the White House through them is obvious to all.

These are similar to the many issues that dogged Hillary Clinton and the entire Clinton family in the run-up to and during her entire official election run. Foreign donations to the Clinton Foundation were rightly scrutinized and criticized. Former President Bill Clinton's speaking fees and other business dealings often looked shady. And lucrative and alluring job offers for Chelsea Clinton over the years continue to be questioned. And remember when former Vice President Dick Cheney's years as CEO of Halliburton led critics to insist his pushing for the Iraq War was all about helping his oil industry friends?