One thing Trump tried to do after getting inaugurated was considering Mexican cartels terrorist organizations, and for that he was attacked by Sheinbaum for violating Mexico’s sovereignty. But, at least as far as I’ve read on the topic (whcih is not a lot to be fair), nobody actually explains why that’s the case. I mean at a glance you’d think the Mexican government would benefit from such an action, or at least I did. It’s pretty obvious to me I’m missing a piece of the puzzle, so does anyone here have it?
Edit: Thanks for the answers. Now it makes sense.
More generally, the founders wrote the constitution as if every leader will act in good faith. That has proven to be a bad idea, but also how do you even account for that? Their idea was a system of checks and balances, but that failed to account for when one party has control over every branch, and for when one branch goes rogue and starts ignoring the other two branches, as we are seeing now with the executive.
IMO, limiting power (money in the case of a capitalistic society) is the only way. The founders had the right idea with the limitation of power, but they didn’t take that idea to the economic side of things. Force all corporations to be worker owned coops and have a hard wealth cap of $50 million by taxing anything over at a rate of 100%.