What if the President of the US couldn't get a security clearance?

[Ravenman]

@t-bonham@scc.net

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?

The National Security Act of 1947 requires that the President keep the oversight committees of Congress “fully and currently informed” of intelligence activities. If an intelligence agency were to try to obstruct the delivery of classified information based on who was running one of the committees, there is no doubt that they would be in violation of the law. If the President didn’t act to correct that, surely Congress could figure out some consequences, from cutting funds to impeachment of the difficult agency officials.

And again, members of Congress don’t have security clearances.

[Tom_Tildrum]

@Wendell_Wagner

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.

A government-lawyer friend of mine told the story of working with a military investigator who, in introducing himself, explained that he and his wife were swingers and liked to go to clubs where they could pick up a third person or perhaps another couple. Apparently whatever DOD component he worked for was trying to push this guy out, and he was making his lifestyle immediately known to others so that the agency would have no basis to assert that he was a target for blackmail. My friend said that he was an excellent investigator, but didn’t know what eventually happened to him.

[Elendil_s_Heir]

@Richard_Parker

…They could then reduce the [Supreme C]ourt to three of the oldest justices and wait for them to die off, and replace them with ideologues…

I don’t doubt that a duly-elected Communist government in the U.S. could do a lot of stuff that would be ruthless, scary and tyrannical, but if we presume that they would actually obey the Constitution as written, there’s still Art. III: “…The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.”

If by “reduce” you mean firing, no. If you mean impeaching and removing from office, I wouldn’t be at all surprised. Historically, communist leaders tend not to get too hung up on legal niceties, to say the least.

To answer the OP: the President is entitled to know everything that’s going on in his government because he holds the executive power under Art. II, and there’s no one who can lawfully deny him the information he requests (other than information protected under Federal privacy laws like tax or medical stuff, but he wouldn’t need a security clearance for that anyway).

[Richard_Parker]

@Elendil_s_Heir

If by “reduce” you mean firing, no. If you mean impeaching and removing from office, I wouldn’t be at all surprised. Historically, communist leaders tend not to get too hung up on legal niceties, to say the least.

Good point. I also forgot about efforts to ban religion which might not go over too well.

[brad_d]

@Wendell_Wagner

Being gay isn’t an automatic disqualifier.

Indeed. I know several openly gay individuals who hold Top Secret clearances.