Skip to comments.Do presidential candidates undergo Security background checks? If not, WHY NOT.
Posted on 03/21/2008 1:38:54 AM PDT by cpforlife.org
Ive been thinking about this for some time. I just did a bit of googeling but found no satisfactory answers, really none at all.
Many jobs require background checks. Law Enforcement and military get even greater scrutiny, and as the job level and contact with sensitive data increases the level of scrutiny goes up.
Do presidential candidates undergo Security background checks? If not, WHY NOT.
Could Clinton or Obama pass a security background check for a high level job at say the FBI or CIA?
If someone were to apply to those agencies and it was found out that their husband was convicted of lying under oath to a Federal Grand Jury and was Impeached from his job and lost his law license would that raise a red flag. Not to mention all the other scandalous things Hillary was involved in herself.
Could Obama with his ties to Rezko, his questionable purchase of his home and adjacent property, pass a security background check? What about his connections to a radical America hating pastor who, with Farrakhan visited Libya. Is that a "red flag"?
And now this: Obama church published Hamas terror manifesto--Charter calls for murder of Jews http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1988986/posts?page=1 Is that a "red flag"?
Do politicians at a certain level simply get a free pass?
Im guessing many Freepers are in jobs that may have some special insight into this and it would be great to get a perspective on all this.
The timing of this post is not optimal but I figured I should do it now. I wont be around too much with Easter weekend but hope to visit and see some good Freeper feedback.
Happy Easter to all.
God Bless America!
But I am starting to think that its not the case. Mainly because of politics.
Hope you might offer your perspective.
Happy Easter to you and yours.
Special Pro-Life-of the Republic PING.
Not likely. Obamas admitted drug use would probably be a disqualifier.
Hillary has legal issues that would delay a clearance being granted.
Because the Constitution enumerates the requirements to be President, and “security check” isn’t one of them.
If there is one can a link be posted to it, please.
If CheHusseinNObama has his way, the vetting process will be a thing of the past.
It’s a good question, and in light of Obama’s relationship with his so-called “church,” one can’t help but wonder how many black people, similarly situated, who are either applying for a security clearance, or already have one, would have their trustworthiness impugned by such an association. These people clearly indicate that they have no allegiance to their country, and the vehemence and vitriolic nature of their rhetoric are both indicators of a mindset that might easily be diverted toward acts of treason.
I once worked with an Air Force officer, a black woman, who professed herself to be very religious and belonged to a local, presumably black, congregation. We used to get into political arguments which centered around George W. Bush and his prosecution of the Iraq war, and you can pretty much guess how the lines were drawn. One day, however, passion got the better of her, and she went pretty far over the line, ranting and raving, in tones very similar to those of Reverend Wright, how “my boy” Bush had orchestrated the 911 attacks on the World Trade Center—all this while wearing the uniform and during duty hours.
I liked this woman (for other reasons), but all the while afterward I couldn’t help but wonder if she was really the type of person who should be given a role of trust within the U.S. military. The fact that on most occasions she came off as a very reasonable, patriotic, middle-class American was particularly disturbing. And to this day I can’t consider the merits of any black person, no matter how mundane, without wondering if, deep inside, he’s harboring a latent resentment against his country that might manifest itself in some unspeakable terms if given the proper impetus.
As disgusted as I am with Politics as practiced in America today, one thing that does happen is that all candidates are vetted in more detail than would be even possible if done by the (more-than-occasionally inept) Security and Law Enforcement agencies.
Every tiniest detail - real, rumored, or imagined - of a candidate’s life is ferretted out by the Media (and by opponents’ “dirty-tricks” offices) and (unlike ‘official’ investigations) placed in the public record.. And repeated ad nauseum...;~(
Then, the decision of whether or not to trust a person with the most powerful position in the land is made, not by some faceless bureaucrat, but by We The People — which is as it should be.
short answer, the only requirements for POTUS are those found in the Constitution. If you want them to pass a background check, it would take a Constitutional Amendment. You’re of course free to base your vote on whether you think they would pass such a background check, and to lobby others to base their decision on the same criteria.
Loyalty to the United States, the Flag, and the Constitution?
"Oh yeah. The country. Sure." Whatever.
"Unlimited Access: An FBI Agent Inside the Clinton White House," by Gary Aldrich, FBI retired.
I have never forgotten that part of the book -- and why should any American want to forget about what Clintonists are about?
If a president is not required to s/he should at least be required to undergo regular drug testing -- DITTO for all elected officials! IMO.
Those would be any condition that doesn’t fulfill the stated requirements,
Article Two of the Constitution sets the principal qualifications to be eligible for election as President. A Presidential candidate must:
* be a natural-born citizen of the United States
* be at least thirty-five years old
* have been resident in the United States for at least fourteen years
Additionally, there are two negative qualifications. Under Article One of the United States Constitution, no Presidential candidate can have previously held the office and been removed by conviction for an impeachable offense. And under the Twenty-Second Amendment, no person who has previously served as President or Acting President for more than six years (one full-term and two additional years) is eligible for election to the Presidency or to the Vice Presidency.
Thats it. Don’t like it? All you need to do is amend the Constitution.
It is not the position that requires a security check, it is access to classified material the the security check is required.
It does seem clear that pols for high office are not dealt with the same way as people who aspire to high security jobs in the CIA FBI and the like. And I guess that is another question I might have asked originally - should they be?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.