Should potential presidential candidates undergo a security risk assessment?

But, they didn't have to get a security clearance to hold office. There's a difference between holding office and sitting on a committee.

 

Odd, considering that there is zero integrity in either party once they get elected. If a candidate had anything negative in their past, the other side will run negative ads. If we are looking to fight corruption, we need to focus on politicians once they are in office. Unfortunately, devout partisans blindly follow and don't seem to care about results. I live in CA, and no one cares that Newsom incentivizes illegal immigration with free health care and gives the business to campaign contributors.

The reason left leaners may be more receptive is because you are using trump as an example. I didn't vote for him, but there is no valid reason he shouldn't be able to run for office.

 

do you even know what separation of powers actually means?

Congress makes the law, Presidents can either sign or veto said law, and if vetoed, Congress can attempt to override the veto with a 2/3 majority of both houses.

Amending the established law is pretty routine and is done constantly by Congress no matter who controls the House, Senate or the WH.

The Ethics in Government Act of 1978 made it mandatory for most high-ranking government officials who are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. The president has done this on a voluntary basis unless state law makes it mandatory as a public official. Every Presidential nominee has done this with the exception of two. One was George W Romney and the other was DJT. It is merely a mandatory financial disclosure when running for the office of the President. The PII information will still be redacted and only the basic information of income, deductions, and credits would be seen. None of the mandatory financial disclosures would affect people's eligibility to run for office

 

So there's no mandatory requirement to provide tax returns for the ten prior years to running for the office. Sorta pointless to enact a law you can't enforce.

 

Greene isn't on a committee because the Democrats voted her off of her committee assignments, like a buncha cry babies. It has nothing to do with a security clearance.

 

No kidding...lol

 

Well, no one can accuse the Democrats of being very smart.

 

Sorry, not of interest to me.

 

PLEEEEEZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ stop with this attitude that you are standing at the lecture podium and are here to instruct others on legal and political matters.

Of course I know what is a blind trust DUH. And the Ethics on Government Act only requires that any blind trust be reported on financial disclosure forms and even limits that and protects them. There is NO requirement anyone use one.

Do you know President Carter almost lost the family peanut farm when the administrators of the blind trust bankrupted it? It took him YEARS to bring it back to fanicial health and they lost millions in the process. Is that what we are going to require of people before they can serve as President.

And yes it would be unconstitutional to require, make mandatory, a President to so as it would be a qualification to hold the office.

 

Per the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, all members of Congress, candidates for federal office, senior congressional staff, nominees for executive branch positions, Cabinet members, the president and vice president and Supreme Court justices are required by the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 to file annual reports disclosing their personal finances. However, financial information does not include tax returns for presidents as this article describes. However, with tax information, it is more complicated and it is based mostly on state law. Some states require disclosure of tax information along with the other financial information and some states don't.

 

You obviously did not know what blind trust was in your original response to me. If you did, you would not have posted that argument that it would diminish the candidates running for President, and I am being kind here. So, please, do a little research on something before you post your garbage again.

As for President Carter, yes, he did almost lose the family farm back in the 1960s or thereabouts. However, that has nothing to do with the topic at hand and is another distractions, more dung to throw at the wall, in your response.

 

I think you should answer your own question. Congress cannot pass a law and a President cannot sign a law that changes the Constitution. Adding a qualification to become President would require a Constitutional Amendment just as term limitations did. It is the STATES than amend the Constitution not the Federal government. The Federal government can ask the states to do so by passing a PROPOSED amendment but it is the States that approve and can even propose and pass them without Congress at all. And just recently California tried to pass a law requiring candidates for President SHALL release their tax returns. It was struck by the CSC citing it would be unconstitutional as it would be a requirement to run for the office that is not stated in the Constitution.

And the security thing raises all sorts of problems. Let's take Biden's FBI doing a security assessment of say candidate Ted Cruz and they issue their report. What does it say "We found he is a security risk so don't vote for him", does it even say anything we can read or would it be just black redaction lines with the government saying "he's a risk but we can't tell you why but don't vote for him"? What would be the recourse for the candidate to prove otherwise?

 

It is based on personal privacy matters you know that right to privacy thingy. Quite frankly I believe that if the financial disclosure forms, especially for President and VP, were ever challenged in court up to the SCOTUS as a qualification to hold office, the courts might overturn such requirements saying as happened in California that it is up to the voter to decide based on whether and how much such information the candidate is willing to disclose.

 

Wrong he lost it AFTER his Presidency, it was bankrupted and he had to sell in fact and my response showed clearly what is a blind trust and how requiring Presidents to do so could limit the field candidates. I believe it is YOU who does not understand what is a blind trust and the possible ramifications of them although I gave the very clear historical case of one.

SPEND
When former president Jimmy Carter left office, his peanut business was $1 million in debt
Published Thu, Jul 18 20199:00 AM EDTUpdated Thu, Jul 18 20198:59 AM EDT

His peanut business, which sold certified seed peanuts and other farm supplies, was $1 million in the red by the time he finished his term, The Washington Post reports. Carter had been managing the family-owned peanut farm, warehouse and store in Plains, Georgia, since his dad died in 1953, but when he became president, he put it into a blind trust to avoid conflicts of interest.

When he left office in debt, “we thought we were going to lose everything,” Carter’s wife Rosalynn told the Post.

Forced to sell the company, Carter started writing books to generate income. Today, the 94-year-old has published more than 30, from a children’s book to reflections on his presidency.
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/17/whe...ice-his-peanut-business-was-deep-in-debt.html

 

The government can't force a citizen to produce his tax returns in order to run for office. It'll never be a law. Give it up.

 

You're conflating financial disclosure with tax returns (which the cited act mandates).
https://www.robertreeveslaw.com/blog/candidates-tax-returns/

 

THAT STILL DOESN'T ANSWER THE QUESTION. "WHO WILL DO THE SECURITY CHECKS!!" WE CAN'T TRUST THE GOV, WITH THE PROVEN BIAS OF THE FBI--CIA--DOJ--& A.G.! SO WHO WOULD DO IT?

 

That does not change the US Constitution just as the Ethics in Government Act never changed the Constitution. You do understand that, right?

 

Tax return information is a form of financial disclosure. It is why banks, for businesses at least, may require certified, audited financial statements along with tax return information on loans. For the public office, tax information, as long as personal identification information is withheld, can be a valuable tool for the public to use in determining who the next candidate should be. The information should be generalized enough but at the same time, specific into what types of income summaries, credits, deductions, etc, is on the return. Tax Return disclosure statements should not be allowed for public viewing.

 

Its not being forced, it is an obligation one must do if one runs for public office.

 

I feel like anyone should be able to run for presidency and I also feel that anyone that Republicans nominate will be labelled as many gross things as possible because Democrats are the most ridiculous and emotional group of people I've ever witnessed

 

Isn't that what Republicans do to Democrats who also run? Talk about the kettle calling the pot black here.

 

Example?

 

That was not the question I answered because that was not question in the thread title. Now read it again and look for the 'who'. Its not in there!

 

I see no reason why it's my business to know yours or anyone's tax return info. Dealing with businesses is different than dealing with the government. With the former there's a risk assessment. The government is not loaning candidates for POTUS money. Knowing if they are earning money from foreign businesses is understandable for it goes to the issue of National Security, but that's what financial disclosure is meant to address. The IRS has access to tax returns and is the only government agency that needs it to collect taxes due.