A question that’s occasionally popped into my head, off and on, for years (at least since 1982 or so, when I accepted a commission in the US Navy and had to go through a background check for a Secret clearance).
For years, various fringe candidates have run for the office of US President; the one that sticks in my head is Gus Hall, who made a career of running for US President as the the candidate of the Communist Party USA.
I can’t possibly imagine that Hall would ever, ever pass a background investigation for a security clearance, for reasons that become obvious after a moment’s contemplation. So what if the US electorate had gone batshit insane and actually elected Hall President? What would they have done? The President obviously has a need to know the deepest, darkest military secrets of the Republic. Would the government have had to reveal those to Hall, notwithstanding the “fact” that he would most likely share that information with his “masters” in Moscow? Or would they have done something to prevent it (I suspect a covert assassination action, myself, but I’ve always been one for a bit of drama).
I am pretty sure that back in the 1980s when I was processed for my clearance, that membership in a Communist or “Communist-front” organization would have been grounds for denial of a clearance. I don’t know if that’s still the case (if I’m correct about it being the case back then). Anyone knowing better feel free to correct me there.
I’m not asking just about a electing a Communist but electing anyone who has something in her/his background–serious debt, being gay (last I looked, that was a disqualifier), etc.
The people that approve security clearances and hold fairly high ones themselves – where does their authority to do so derive from? That’s right – th mandate of the President to protect and defend the nation. As one of Lois McMaster Bujold’s characters said while investigating an incident with the Emperor’s authority behind him, “I don’t ask for search warrants; I issue them.” The President either has the highest level security clearance by virtue of his job, or the authority to grant himself it.
> I’m not asking just about a electing a Communist but electing anyone who has
> something in her/his background–serious debt, being gay (last I looked, that
> was a disqualifier), etc.
Being gay isn’t an automatic disqualifier. A gay person applying for a security clearance would be asked to show that they can’t be blackmailed, which would mostly mean that their family has to know about their sexual orientation. The amount of debt would be taken into consideration in deciding whether someone can get a security clearance.
In any case, when someone is running for President, they have to be open about all these sorts of things. If they aren’t, the opposition party will bring such things up. By electing someone as President, the American electorate would be implicitly saying that they don’t consider such qualities as the President-elect has as being a disqualifier to their being President.
Could the theoretical Communist or nut-job honestly take the oath of office to:
“I [name] do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. (optional) So help me God.” Presidental Oath
Plus the heads of the various services/Joint Chief of Staff in addition to all the officers have taken an oath:
“I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. (optional) So help me God.” US Uniformed Services Oath of Office
Thus they might ignore an order from the President if they believe it was illegal in that it would prevent them from fufilling their oath to protect and defend … maybe. Sounds like lots of late-nights for the JAG Corps and Congress and the Supreme Court?
Someone who honestly believes in Communism will honestly believe that Communism is the best sort of government for the U.S., and hence they will honestly believe that causing the government of the U.S. to be closer to a Communist philosophy will be the best way to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.” An American electorate that chooses to elect someone as President who openly declares themselves to be a Communist has decided that such a person will indeed “preserve, protect, and defend.” In the absurdly unlikely circumstances that the electorate makes that decision, that’s what they believe.
Just because someone is a Communist doesn’t necessarily mean that they will betray the government to another country’s Communist government. It’s theoretically possible for someone to believe in Communism and to believe that the U.S. should remain a sovereign country which they will continue to defend. Whether that’s practically possible is a separate question. Please note that I am not encouraging anyone to run as a Communist. Please note that I am not encouraging anyone to vote for a Communist. I am only talking about what political positions it is theoretically possible for someone to hold. I am making no claims about what positions make any useful political sense and I am making no claims about what positions are politically best for the U.S.
I don’t think so - there are numerous features of said Constitution incompatible with communism as it has been generally applied.
I don’t doubt that a communist would want communism for the country and believe it his patriotic duty to bring that about - but he wouldn’t feel any great love for the Constitution in this process and any affirmation swearing to uphold it would likely be either false or a massive political compromise.
Well, this is also true, and probably far more so, for libertarianism.
And none of it matters in the least. Any person elected president in an open election is qualified to be president, to take the oath, and to govern as President of the United States. Period. If Congress feels that this is not true, it can impeach and convict. Unless and until that time, the president is the president.
It is certainly possible (and it has happened) that someone could get elected President while running on a platform that says that they will attempt to get a certain Constitutional amendment passed. Such a person would claim that they are “preserving, protecting, and defending” by changing the Constitution for the better. For instance, FDR presumably ran while saying that he would get the Constitution amended to eliminate Prohibition. Similarly, someone could run for President on a platform that said that they will attempt to get the Constitution amended so as to throw out any portions that contradict Communism and so as to add whatever portions are necessary to install a Communist government. In the absurdly unlikely circumstances that the American electorate voted for such a person (and for Communist Senators and Representatives and state legislators), they would have in effect voted to change the American government to a Communist form. Once again, I am only talking about what is theoretically possible. I am making no comment about what is practically possible, let alone about what anyone should do.
Marxism? Leninism? Maoism? Trotskyism? I agree wholeheartedly with you that the form of communism which we grew up opposing during the 20th century is most emphatically incompatible with American government. But there is nothing in the stripped-to-the-bones definition of communism as a socio-economic philosophy that is inherently contradictory to the U.S. Constitution. Even liberty of contract could be seen to survive. True, our national institutions presuppose a laissez-faire economiic system with some degree of regulation – how much liberty and how much regulation is subject to dispute. But Wendell’s point – that the generic theory that the means of production should be owned by their workers, and materials disbributed according to need and not according to ability to afford – is not totally at odds with America. Marxian dialectic, yes. Leninist internationalidm, yes. These can be argued to be fundamentally at odds. But it’s a major case of “define your terms” argument.
By which I am absolutely not arguing for communism – I find it objectionable on numerous levels, including the degree of curtailment of individual freedom it entails. But don’t fall prey to Der Trihs’s Fallacy – that the common conception of an idea involves highly objectionable aspects does not mean that the basic idea shorn of those aspects is therefore itself necerssarily the evil that those aspects make it.
Well, a few points. First of all I went to great pains to stress that this was in relation to communism as generally applied. That line wasn’t there as a throwaway - I thought we needed to compare our constitutional form with communist governments as we have generally seen them.
And I think we need to keep that comparison there, for two reasons: First, this stripped down communism you mention is largely theoretical. It serves us better to think of government as it is rather than skylarking - especially since experience shows that communism cannot be applied without considerable coercion - a coercion again incompatible with our constitutional forms.
This is an interesting hypothetical. Even assuming an extremely repressive form of Communism, I’m not sure you’re right.
Swearing to uphold the Constitution doesn’t mean agreeing with all parts of it. It means agreeing to obey and defend it until it is changed by the proper process. A Communist President could swear to uphold it and then immediately go about changing it through the amendment process to reflect whatever ideology he wanted.
And, in truth, much of the Communist agenda could be carried out under the Constitution with a compliant Congress and current Supreme Court jurisprudence. The Constitution isn’t really designed to deal with a government intent on undermining the spirit of the law. A Communist Congress could just abolish all federal courts except the Supreme Court. If they had state cooperators, they could get rid of state courts as well. They could then reduce the court to three of the oldest justices and wait for them to die off, and replace them with ideologues.
Even if a court-packing scheme failed, a Communist President along with Congress could still carry out most of the Communist agenda in compliance with the Constitution. They could nationalize most industries and take control over much private property and turn it into public property. They could immediately end the existence of all corporations and other legal property structures created by statute. There would be a few Fifth Amendment bumps, but not a ton after Kelo. The ideological control that generally follows Communism would have difficulty with the First Amendment, but private actors could off course do a lot of the dirty work (like they did in the Cultural Revolution in China). Plus, the government can already pretty much teach whatever it wants in schools other than religious doctrine. So that wouldn’t be an issue. They would have to close down private schools and compel public school attendance, but that is probably constitutional. Guns would be a sticking point, but sort of incidental to their agenda. They could easily quash any rebellion–they’d probably encourage it as a means of gaining more power.
What aspects of Communism would the Constitution prevent?
The move from a heavily religious farm-based slave state to a secular corporate based economy is just about as jarring as going from capitalism to communism. The founders wouldnt even recognize the US today and would be more than a little shocked at the things we take for granted. So, if the the Americans wanted to move to communism then it would have been a gradual change in the state and federal laws. By the time Gus Hall got the presidency it would be a done deal and whatever changes to the constitution would be passed with ease.
I dont even think it would be that big of a change. The constitution doesnt say “you must be a farm based slave state” nor does it say “you must be a corporate global capitalist system.” It certainly doesnt say you cant have communism.
Bernie Saunders, Senator from Vermont, is a Socialist, and an Independent in the Senate. If he were to become Chair of a committee like the Senate Foreign Intelligence Committee, whose members get special access to secret intelligence, would the military agencies try to deny him a security clearance?
Regarding security clearances, I once had to apply for one when working on software for a naval weapons system. When looking at the forms, I noticed the instruction: “List every organization you have ever been a member of. (Except for political party organizations.)” So I asked the HR security officer “so I have to list the 4-H clubs I belonged to in grade school, but if I was a member of the Communist Party USA, I could leave that off?” He looked at me deadpan, and said "If you were a member of the Communist Party, we already know that. Then we both started laughing, realizing how true that probably was.
From what I’ve read, Congress has such clearance by virtue of being elected. But clearance isn’t the whole story - even cleared people are only granted access to such information as they need to do their job. The information in question is highly compartmentalized.
The representatives also rely on the executive branch agencies for security clearances for their staff members - and these can be denied or held up sometimes.
