Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think its understood that would be unconstitutional.
After Hillary mishandled classified information, should would never be able to hold a security clearance again, but that didn't stop her from running for president.
Hillary and Huma, still have top level security clearance today.
And if it was the other way around Hillary would have instantly been disqualified.
I have no problem with all candidates getting their background checked and knowing before I vote for them whether they passed. I have held federal security clearance at 2 jobs in my career, btw. Why me and why not them???
I have no problem with all candidates getting their background checked and knowing before I vote for them whether they passed. I have held federal security clearance at 2 jobs in my career, btw. Why me and why not them???
I think its understood that would be unconstitutional.
After Hillary mishandled classified information, should would never be able to hold a security clearance again, but that didn't stop her from running for president.
That’s not true. As I’ve previously said here, it boils down to intent. I know people who’ve had leaks. They investigate to determine your intent. You aren’t automatically stripped of your clearance.
Each party requires their nominee to garner xxx number of votes at their convention in order to get their party's nomination. I don't recall that being in the Constitution.
Placing additional qualifications at the party level would be the ruin of that party. Virtue checking only has so much legal standing.
As I said, It would be Unconstitutional to do so, unless the Constitution is amended to add the additional qualification requirement. The Constitution cannot be altered by legislation. Or do you think otherwise?
Trump voters have proven they don’t take that responsibility seriously enough. We can’t continue having a bunch of idiots giving foreign shills access to our most sensitive information.
Actually the Dems didn't consider it at all by running the most corrupt dirty girl ever to represent them.
There is actually proof of her collusion with Russia and disregard for national security information.
I shouldn't need to hammer that home when she hammered the blackberry.
Each party requires their nominee to garner xxx number of votes at their convention in order to get their party's nomination. I don't recall that being in the Constitution.
That is part of democracy involved in our elections.
As conservative as I am, I can register and run as a Democrat tomorrow and the Democrats could not deny me.
Placing additional qualifications at the party level would be the ruin of that party. Virtue checking only has so much legal standing.
As I said, It would be Unconstitutional to do so, unless the Constitution is amended to add the additional qualification requirement. The Constitution cannot be altered by legislation. Or do you think otherwise?
Would not be unconstitutional as long as the Party does NOT disqualify the person solely based on it. The potential nominee could continue to run. Isn't this the most transparent way?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
