There’s no question of that, Foiegras. But remember, in this context, “Joe” is an individual without the credentials that the government usually requires for access to top secret information.
I mean, if a few years of military and public service is all that’s required, then many of my local politicians, whom I wouldn’t trust to keep a surprise party secret, would have access to sensitive national info.
I think this is your argument’s fallacy, as it presents a situation that doesn’t occur (well, mostly doesn’t) in that there AREN’T predetermined credentials for politicians to receive or request sensitive information due to the fact that we are (supposed to be) a representative form of government. Once they’re in office, the predetermined accessability to secrets is implied. But nobody without some political or military experience with this will have access, outside the random agent, hacker or spy.
The President, by virtue of being Commander In Chief, has the right to see any kind of classified material he wants. End of story.
Congressmen don’t need security clearences either, but classified material access is controlled by who sits on the relevant committee(s). Joe Schmuck Congressman can’t see anything he wants, but can see what his committee has oversight of. Congressmen are booted off committees on a semi-regular basis for screwing up their positions of trust.
I repeat, there is no inherent Constitutional right for the President to view information, even that generated by the executive branch. The President’s ability to view information is subordinate to any laws passed by Congress.
Two examples have already been given where under current law the President is clearly not given authority to view: medical records and tax return information, either of which could be seen by other executive branch employees (for instance, a VA doctor, and an IRS employee, respectively).
Now, I don’t know the current laws for secret/classified/super double secret information; I certainly find it plausible that current laws do not forbid the President from ordering executive branch employees to show her whatever secret info she wants. But it is still theoretically possible for Congress to create a category of secret information that could not be legally shared with the President (for instance, Congress might decide to formalize the Secret Service tradition that agents never reveal information gained while guarding public figures, since candidates from opposing parties may receive protection.)
What, you’ve never heard of the Village?
I believe there’s a line between private information (e.g., doctor, tax) that have other protections and Executive branch entities that create or collect information (e.g., UFOs, stealth bombers). Congress has limited power over the latter, mainly due to separation of powers issues (they can’t tell the Executive branch how to do its business).
What about the grey area between the two? Say, FBI or CIA files that have legitimate surveillance records? Can information gathered via a wiretap or other warrant-required method legally be shared with someone outside the investigation? Can the President just ‘become’ part of the investigation if interested? What about no-warrant-required surveillance (e.g., photos from the street, analysis of contacts and routines)? While the President may have need/desire to be in on surveillance of a terrorist cell in order to determine whether or not a third country is supporting them, the President could also have a need/desire to see the files on his political or business opponents. Who draws the line? Under one analysis, Congress can’t get involved, but on the other, there has to be some check, no?
You keep conflating confidential information with classified information. I agree that Congress can pass laws about the former. I don’t have any evidence that it can pass laws about the latter that would stand constitutional muster.
To make your case you need two things you haven’t presented. One is that there is no difference between confidential and classified information. The other is that Congress has ever passed a law curtailing the viewing of classified information by the president.
I’m saying you can’t give me those two things because they’re wrong or non-existent. If I’m wrong, please give me the cites. Your opinion that Congress can do this isn’t sufficient because I’m saying flatly that your opinion is incorrect.
You and **Ravenman ** are free to disagree with the proposition that the President has a Constitutionally derived right to complete authority over the operations of the executive branch, but unitary executive theory has its proponents.
Once again, see U.S. v. Nixon. The Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the President couldn’t use executive privilege to withhold documents from investigators.
So they may be people out there that think that ruling was wrong, but the fact is that the law does not allow the President complete authority over all information created by the executive branch.
[picayune]
You are correct. For clarity’s sake, I just wanted to note that the gist of the OP and much of the thread was about Presidential access to information, not control of that information. This doesn’t conflict with your post, nor does it mean to imply that your post isn’t a logical extension of the topic. [/picayune]
You’d think the names of deep cover hit squads covertly assanating American citizens would be better kept a secret, too- but then who’s going to regulate them?
Beat me to it. We’re talking about access to information *within * the executive, not whether other branches may access that information. *US v Nixon * dealt with questions of executive priviledge, not unitary executive theory – related but distinct concepts. Executive privilege is the claim that the executive branch is immune to demands for information regaring executive operations by the legislative and judicial branches. In US v Nixon, the Court gave some legitimacy to the until-then untested concept of executive privledge, but did state that the claim was not absolute.
Unitary Exectutive Theory is the claim that, under the Vesting clause (“The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America”) the President has sole authority over the how the executive branch goes about executing the laws. Therefore, it would be unconstitutional for the Congress to constrain the President’s ability to manage and direct the operations of the executive. Presumably, under this theory, it would be unconstitutional for Congress to limit the President’s ability to obtain any information from his subordinates in the executive.
Not saying I subscribe to it, but I would argue that the caselaw is not nearly settled enough on this point to state that the position that the President has the right to any information generated or held by the executive, “is not supportable in any way, shape or form.”
Exapno – I wasn’t saying Congress has limited the President’s ability to view classified information (as far as I know, it hasn’t), only that it potentially could pass legislation that does that (just as it actually has limited the President’s ability to see certain other types of information such as tax and health information). If everyone agrees on that, then we’re done.
You are right, I misinterpreted your statement from the previous page: I read it for some reason as the Executive can control information, but you did indeed say access information. Point well taken.
However, I’m not aware of anyone who has actually argued that the Privacy Act is unconstitutional.
This. SOMEONE’S gotta be running the show. And how would we expect the President to do his job if he’s kept out of the loop?
President: "Dispatch the military to country “Z.”
Smoking Man leans over: “Actually, we don’t need to, we have these new ::whisper::”
President: “YOU’RE SHITTING ME?!?!?!”
I certainly don’t agree. I say it can’t be done. I keep asking you to give me any basis at all for saying this, but I haven’t heard anything yet.
I feel like I’m becoming the Unitary Executive cheerleader here, but under that conception you would not be correct. Congress would not have the ability to limit the President’s access to information held by his subordinates in the Executive Branch. However, it’s just theory – I don’t believe there’s been any court case to directly address the concept. You’d need an actual circumstance of the President demanding to see such information, and I don’t think even the current President would go demanding to read medical files just for kicks.
I think the President would first have to know he wants something, before anyone’s gonna give it to them. I doubt people go around gossiping to the president things he doesn’t “need to know,” Even the president asking, “Hey, so, did the US start xxx war?” or “So, about them aliens…” will more likely get a quick, white lie “no” than a, “here’s a list of all our classified documents on the subject.” And that makes all the difference. In the end, what ever the technicalities, it’s probably safe to say most Presidents didn’t get to know shit.
Not quite. It operates by common sense bounded by rules. The rules are just a framework, like a skeleton or the thin ribs in reinforced concrete that give shape and structure to something that would crumble without them. Yet they are just as useless on their own.
It’s probably safe to say that you have no idea what you are talking about. I think many people in this thread have been listening to far too many conspiracy theories.
The President is briefed on any classified topic he wants to know about, and anything else he or his subordinates deems to be of importance. Nobody in the intelligence services or the military is ever going to give a “white lie” to the President. If the President asks about a topic, he’ll get as complete a briefing as he wants, up to and including “here’s a list of all our classified documents on the subject.”
While it’s correct that people with access to classified information generally must have a “need to know,” there is no such requirement for the President.
Also, this statement has no basis in reality:
There is no procedure whereby military personnel or anyone else establishes trust over the course of time. (Indeed, some of the most notorious spies were long-time employees in the intelligence services.) Instead, everything hinges on regular background investigations, as described in this link. As stated, the President foregoes the background investigation(s) on the basis of his constitutional position.
Incidentally, when I was in the U.S. Navy, I held a TS/SCI clearance.
Well you really have no way to know that. Cite? What I know is how actual people actually act. I mean what you’re saying is probably true for any sort of mundane stuff, but subordinates have an inherent friction in them which will be vastly amplified if the topic is in the least bit marginal or intractable. If the President wanted to get the scoop on some dirty piece of the past or present, he’d have to start an investigation, he won’t just receive everything on a silver platter*. Remember, it’s not robots who surround him in government.
*(unless maybe he’s incredibly popular and inspiring and everyone around him just want to please him. But if it’s a Joe Schmoe, then forget it. Friction all the way. Friction is not the same as an outright wall, but it makes all the difference!)
You seem to be describing a “career bureaucrat” mindset. That is, the mindset of a government employee who holds his job from administration to administration. I don’t think that they would hide anything from the President, but I don’t think such an individual would necessarilly volunteer anything, either. Still, these folks are generally several layers down the food chain from the President.
The dudes and dudettes that the President actually deals with, face to face, on a daily basis, are generally White House staffers, and they will volunteer anything they think might be relevant. (They owe their jobs to him, after all.)