Mole, the “why would he need it” aspect of this question is something I inquired about. If he asked for confidential information just because he wanted to know and for no other reason, who has the authority to tell him “no”?
Polycarp mentioned that the president has near-plenary power here. So what inferior officer can deny him?
Well, as mentioned by iwakura and Wombat, it’s probably true that there are certain things that the president does not know, is not made aware of when assuming office, and therefore would never ask about. Except of course for such controversial “supposed” secrets like Groom Lake. And even if the president demanded a tour of the facility, who’s to say he would be shown everything?
I think that elected officials are just too close to the public to be given full disclosure, despite what the law says. As I mentioned, it’s much easier to destroy the record of an anonymous official once he/she starts to talk, and discredit him/her completely. Not so easy with a former pres.
Could anyone link me to the prior thread discussing this topic?
Um, cite?
'Cause that’s kind of different from the most common reading of the Constitution throughout its history.
The constitution says nothing about secrets, so under the usual reading of the Constitution, the only source of the President’s authority to classify and make secret is particular laws passed by Congress, though of course, the only duty she has to share information is that embodied in laws passed by Congress as well. In the absence of any laws, she is probably free to order various procedures in the executive branch about sharing and not sharing information, but this freedom is always subordinate to the law.
Not surprisingly, Presidents have on occasion argued that their power is not limited by particular laws they dislike, but to date neither the consensus of neutral legal scholars nor the Courts have looked favorably on such arguments.
In theory, Congress could pass a law creating a body of information denied to the President. It’s possible some medical records fall into this category; if they do it’s not because of some inherent property of medical records, but because laws duly passed by Congress apply.
In theory, yes. The president could veto this, but Congress could override the veto. Then the Supreme Court would have to make a decision. Laws passed by Congress only apply if they are constitutional.
We know the answer to this because we’ve been through it with regard to IRS data.
That this is presumed to be illegal even for the President is shown by its being included in Article 2 of Nixon’s proposed impeachment.
Where the distinction lies is that information classified as secret is not the same as information that is personal and private. They are two different classes of information, although they may overlap in practice.
I have to side with the others here who insist that the President has complete authority to ask for and receive any information that is classified as secret. There can be no such thing as democratic government if an unelected subordinate gets to decide what elected officials can and can’t know. Our entire system of government is predicated on the proposition that any citizen can step in and do the work of governance. Contrary to what **pbase ** keeps saying, this is the basis for our democracy, not a danger to it. (Well, any more than every other aspect of our democracy is a potential danger in extreme cases.)
So like everyone else I have to ask for a cite that there is any *actual * limitation on the President’s ability to see classified information rather than confidential information.
I agree with you. And I’m not saying that providing an elected official full access to sensitive information is a danger to national security. I’m just wondering if this is what is actually done when any president takes office. The president may have this right under the constitution, but many people in office seem to consider the constitution a suggestion, rather than laws of governance.
I mean, we’ve all seen the blacked out lines on documents released under the Freedom of Information Act. Even though the FOIA has exemptions that provide the government with an “out” as far as disclosing the document, even the documents they release are heavily edited of all but the most basic information. So under the law, the record is released, but the information is still withheld. A fast and loose interpretation of the law, no?
So even if by law, a president has access to all levels of information, can he actually get anything he requests, was my quandary. Because it seems to me, considering who he/she is, that although it’s the law, it may not make common sense to do so.
Perhaps my thinking has been tainted by conspiracy theorists. I believe I’m of a mind that in order for the most sensitive government information to remain confidential, no public official has access to it, the officials that do are not known to the public, their record of employment is sealed and in itself considered classified, and there are probably only a few unknown individuals who have complete access to all.
I just don’t see any other way to employ people to work on projects that must be kept confidential and under control until it’s decided that the info can be declassified.
I asked a similar question re members of Congress and security clearance and got a rather different answer. I can’t find the thread on search, but the gist IIRC is that members of Congress can be denied access to classified documents on some basis, and therefore would be unable to sit on certain congressional committees that routinely deal with classified material.
I’m not trying to be mean but this shows a certain naivete about classification habits and federal employees.
I am sitting in a small town in rural Ohio and within 15 feet of me are two people who have held Top Secret clearance. One still has it. I no longer do. It was part of being a federal contractor about 15 years ago and and it permitted me to see information that was part of my job. Back in Washington, DC (where I moved here from) I can think of, literally, hundreds of people I know who hold or have held SOME form of clearance, that they hold it is known due to where they work, and no effort is made to hide that fact.
Bear in mind, not all ‘Top Secret’ material is of the ‘we hid the button of the destructo-ray at the mall in the Victoria’s Secret’ kind. A lot of it is budgetary or proprietary information that consists of rather mundane stuff that is classified for some reason or another by someone up the chain of command.
To get my clearance I filled out a form (a LONG one), a full background check was done, and I had to be interviewed (that took about an hour) by a security officer. In addition, I had yearly briefings from security officers about what classification meant, what the punishment for breaking such was, and methods they’d known for getting people to divulge such information.
Note that my briefings were attended by a few dozen people. Having a clearance in Washington is not exactly a rare thing.
Yeah, I saw that thread when I was doing a search for the OP. And it was me that provided the answer.
To recap, the lack of a clearance for members of Congress doesn’t mean they have full access to classified information. Members of the intelligence committees, for example, are privy to matters not shared with other members. The membership of those committees isn’t determined by passing a background investigation, it is determined by who the leadership thinks should be on the committee. Each house of Congress may place rules on their members pertaining to access to classified information, for example, the House each member to basically sign a non-disclosure agreement before seeing classified information. There were a couple members who refused to sign, therefore they didn’t get anything – but that was due to the House rules, not anything having to do with a security clearance. See clause 13.
Here’s a cite for the no-clearance thing. I provided the plain text rather than the PDF of the DOD document for the sake of convenience. Link.
No, you don’t understand the Freedom of Information Act at all. FOIA doesn’t require that national security secrets be released. In fact, if you sent in a FOIA request for certain types of classified information – I believe cryptographic information is one – the agency doesn’t even have to look for what you asked for, since the law provides that it is a waste of time and effort for a clerk somewhere to go look for something that can never be released under FOIA.
For better or for worse, our government operates by rules, not reliance on common sense.
Thanks, Jonathan. I’m unclear as to the actual levels of clearance, and I don’t think that I will probably have the opportunity to speak with anyone who really knows for certain. But your info was helpful.
Ravenman, I think I do have a pretty good grasp of the FOIA. I completely understand that the law has caveats built in, that allow the government to refuse the request of certain documents.
What I’m speaking of is the frequent habit of complying with this law by sending the document, but often blacking out over 90% of the information. Rather than denying the request by not sending the document at all (a violation of the law) it seems that the government has found a loophole by sending the requested document, heavily edited. This is a common complaint of many who have requested information under this law.
Yes, ideally the government is supposed to work by rules. But rules don’t govern, the humans who interpret the rules and laws do. And besides, if you don’t know that a rule is being broken, then who’s to say it actually was? Variations of this question play themselves out in court every day.
This is ridiculous. And I say that as someone who has been an adult since the Johnson administration and has seen numerous violations of the constitution.
No. I assume the law you’re speaking of is the FOIA law, not the constitution. I can’t figure out how you conflate the two in the same answer. How is not disclosing the information that the law specifically allows to be redacted a violation of the law or of the constitution? What does this have to do with security clearances of the President, the executive branch, or other elected or appointed officials?
It makes complete and total sense. It could not possibly be any other way and make any sense at all.
At the very least.
This is somewhat incoherent. However, as far as I understand it, it is wrong in every way.
Why not allow the people who must do the work, supervise the work, and be accountable for the work have access to it? That seems sensible to me. It’s also exactly the way it works.
It’s not a loophole. It’s part of the law that some documents have portions that are not subject to release. If a document is requested, it’s released with any non-releasable portions blacked out.
I do think we need to make a distinction between “the government” and “the executive.” As the Constitutional source of all executive authority, the President arguably has the right to any information generated or held by the executive. He would NOT have the right to demand to see a Congressman’s internal work product, as that would be protected under the Speech or Debate Clause of the Constitution. This was an issue with the FBI raid of William Jefferson’s Congressional office – the DC Appeals court ruled that the FBI’s seizure of official documents and use of a “filter team” to separate out what was relevant to the investigation from what was purely pertaining to his legislative duties did not afford him adequate protection under the clause.
It is not a loophole. You really do not understand the law correctly. FOIA is designed for deleted information to be reflected on released documents. From 5 USC 552:
He does not and that allegation, as phrased, is not supportable in any way, shape or form. See United States v. Nixon.
Sure he’s “Joe”, Nemo. That’s the beauty of a democracy. Any citizen can become president, if he can convince the voters he’s worthy of the job. You don’t even need to have held a government position prior.
In the context of this topic, “Joe” is someone without any military briefing, who hasn’t established trust through years of maintaining the confidentiality of top secret information. He’s a civilian, elected to office.
I find this incredibly naive, pbase. In theory, yes, anyone can become President, but never has some “Joe” (and I take that to mean an everyman with no political experience whatsoever) been elected to the Presidency without stints in local, state or federal government, or at least service in the military at the general officer level, which is politically initiating in and of itself by the nature of being a general officer.
Exapno, I’ll admit you’re more knowledgeable than me in matters regarding the law.
You can still make your points without being so terse.
Although I didn’t state that the deletion of information in the FOIA was a violation of constitutional law, it’s been cleared for me that it is legal under the caveats of the act itself. I only mentioned the FOIA to show that it’s a common practice, and understandably so, to selectively divulge information. My original question was just that it seemed a bit odd considering the amount of time it takes for an government employee to gain a high-level of clearance, that a president is given the same clearance once in office without undergoing the same scrutiny.
The topic has become a bit sidetracked, and I don’t want it to continue in the adversarial tone you’ve established. I’m willing to let it rest at “the law says he can” and that’s that.
