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.
The Constitution identifies all the requirements for president. No other requirement is consitutional.
At the same time, the Constitution does not compel anyone to fund a campaign. A restriction could be "enforced" if a large enough union of people refused to contribute to the campaign without the disclosure of the relevant info. The Constitution can only forbid the government from imposing extra requirements by law.
Consider, by comparison, the two-party system. Nowhere in the Constitution is there a requirement to belong to either of the two major parties to run. Yet, in practice, it is a de facto requirement to have any chance at success.
If enough of the public banded together to demand higher transparency, it could happen.
I did some contract security clearance investigations for OPM and the FBI years ago. It's tedious trying to develop and knock out the leads listed on the 86's. Contractors break up the leads among investigators. Tough tracking down references and knocking on doors.
The clearance doesn't end when you quit a particular post. It stays in effect for the proper period (five or seven years) from the last date of renewal. For instance, I had four years left on my clearance when I retired from the Air Force. I could have gone back to work on that same clearance for any number of defense contractors, or (after six months) for the government.
In fact, defense contractors are quick to pick someone up on that basis. Lockeed offered me a job as a computer programmer. When I told them I wasn't a programmer (although I fiddled as a hobby), the recruiter said, "It costs us nearly $100,000 to clear a programmer for SCI. It will only cost us $20,000 to teach you programming."
It would be illegal for a government employee to take classified materials home regardless of the status of his clearance, unless, like some generals and the president, he has a SCIF in his home.
if someone loses their position the security clearance becomes deactivated. They have 24 months to have it reactivated without another investigation. That makes them a hot commodity in the national security trades. Saves employers a lot of cash.
At the same time, the Constitution does not compel anyone to fund a campaign. A restriction could be "enforced" if a large enough union of people refused to contribute to the campaign without the disclosure of the relevant info. The Constitution can only forbid the government from imposing extra requirements by law.
Consider, by comparison, the two-party system. Nowhere in the Constitution is there a requirement to belong to either of the two major parties to run. Yet, in practice, it is a de facto requirement to have any chance at success.
If enough of the public banded together to demand higher transparency, it could happen.
If you think enough of the public cares to let that override all their other campaign issues...go for it. Start a petition.
So the Trump scandal got me thinking. If a civilian wants a job that involves access to national secrets, he/she must complete a long form and list a lot of aspects of their life, history, and contacts going back 7 to 10 years, which then gets investigated.
But yet a presidential candidate, who seeks what is effectively the highest clearance in the nation, is not required to disclose this same info to voters.
How does this make any sense at all?
Methinks it is about power and not about national security.
I’ve thought the same thing. Why don’t we vet Presidential candidates the way we would anyone else who applied for a security clearance?
Is this new? Last I remembered (though it has been a while), it was 7 for Secret and 10 for TS/SCI. That's for the form, they can and will collect for as far back as they feel like.
I joined in 05 so its been around for at least that long
I did some contract security clearance investigations for OPM and the FBI years ago. It's tedious trying to develop and knock out the leads listed on the 86's. Contractors break up the leads among investigators. Tough tracking down references and knocking on doors.
on of my addresses is my woods place way up in NW PA. they got up, dressed in their men in black suits, and drove their men in black car 5+ hours and asked questions..so they got budget....
I got the TS/SCI clearance while I was in Air Force technical school right after basic. After finishing tech school, I finally got back home on leave. While there, I visited a few family friends and neighbors.
It was rather funny. At some point during every visit, everyone would wind up edging to the same question: "Some government agents came around asking questions about you...."
I joined in 05 so its been around for at least that long
I was way before you (more than a decade), so things could have easily changed. Again, I want to emphasize that there is the form and what you are required to disclose, and then there is what the investigating agent will collect, which is far more than what you are required to disclose.
Quote:
Originally Posted by skeddy
if someone loses their position the security clearance becomes deactivated. They have 24 months to have it reactivated without another investigation. That makes them a hot commodity in the national security trades. Saves employers a lot of cash.
This. One thing we learned early on was that a security clearance is not tied to an individual, but an individual in a role. If you were TS/SCI in a job, and then quit/got fired, you are no longer TS/SCI, period. The cornerstone of security clearances is the concept of "need to know", if you have no current responsibilities that require a need to know (i.e. if you're between jobs) then the previously approved clearance does not apply. The reason why those less than 2 years removed are so coveted by the industry is that it is significantly "cheaper" to hire someone who only needs to reactivate (i.e. no background check) vs someone who needs to go through the entire process again. One needs to understand that at points, it could take up to 2 years to get someone a clearance (esp TS/SCI), in the meantime, their status of having an interim clearance could significantly impact the work they could actually do. Being able to short circuit that waiting period is extremely valuable.
So you're concerned about a President not keeping a secret to himself?
I know Joey's an idiot, but I never thought about that.
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.
