Should potential presidential candidates undergo a security risk assessment?

Knowing if candidates are earning money from any source represents a potential national security risk, that I and the public need to assess before I cast my ballot. Wherever bribery or extortion may infect the oval office, its our job as voters to assess the risk and we need this information. Full disclosure five years of tax returns or the candidate does not appear on the ballot. I like that idea.

 

Financial disclosure forms address the sources of income without the necessity of knowing the amounts earned. The amounts earned doesn't matter.
https://www.citizen.org/article/per...quirements-for-public-officials/#:~:text=This disclosure requirement is in place as a,requirements for members and employees of the government.

We should know if a candidate is compromised by a foreign nation. That's why it's important to know if Joe has a connection to Hunter's foreign business dealings; he could be compromised.

 

That's another way of saying "forced" and no matter what thesaurus you use, it's still unconstitutional.

 

Anyone can run who has not been impeached. Even criminals. The Socialist Party candidate actually ran his 1912 campaign from prison.

 

No we need to know amounts because they measure the actual risk. We need to know all sources because risk is not limited to foreign agents.

We need the tax form and we need at least 5 years of it, and because we are the guys who do the hiring and firing, we need it public.

 

TITLE:
Should potential presidential candidates undergo a security risk assessment?
: OK, THEN ANSWER THE QUESTION.----WHO DOES THE SECURITY RISK ASSESSMENT? WE CAN'T TRUST THE GOV, WITH THE PROVEN BIAS OF THE FBI--CIA--DOJ--& A.G.! SO WHO WOULD DO IT? THERE MUST BE SOME ONE TO DO THE RISK ASSESSMENT. SO WHO?

 

the answer is sitting in the post you originally quoted. "People should always get security clearances before they receive security information access. Candidates for office are among those people. No need to do background clearances on candidates simply because they file for office."

Now I get that you want me to address another question of yours rather than Bowerbird's based on your premise. I decline because your premise is warm pile of dog feces on a cold winter day.

 

Yes and I am asking if that should be rethought given the potential for disaster

 

Why can’t you trust YOUR government? After all it is YOUR government not mine

 

I don't have any strong feelings either way, good points on both sides.

This would have a more significant impact than it might seem. One cop walks into Obama's dormroom at the wrong time and he's gone for felony possession of cannabis and even if people wanted to back him they would be unable to do so.

Any proposal I'd support would have to be clearly defined (ie: people convicted of felonies and actually given more than a 5 year prison sentence).

Effectively it would give the courts the ability to deny the convicted person future political office through a 5 year plus sentence.

The other question is... will people actually want to elect people convicted of felonies and sentenced to 5 years plus in prison anyway. I doubt it.

 

Can you guys ever get past Trump? How about talking about runaway inflation and the fact that we are in a recession?

 

I think it is you who does not.

 

First the fed can't tell the states how to run their elections. That includes the electors to the EC. The ONLY qualifications for President are in the Constitution. If you want them tonpass some test be it a security check or a mental or physical test then the States have to agree to an amendment.

 

So any businessman/woman who has international dealings, or has been in politics for most of their lives, or has family members in either of the aforementioned, or someone who understands finances, or someone whose parents carry other nationalities, family members have homes in foreign nations....

Yeah. That should narrow the candidate field a wee bit, eh?

 

....as long as I get to decide who can run.....sure.

 

Actually, I do. Presidential candidates are required under FEC rules to provide financial data when they run. That includes assets, liabilities, income, major expenses, etc. And that is not in the US Constitution, is it Blues? And yet, it is deemed legal and Constitutional based on the necessary and proper clause. Why don't you and others who think like you file a suit to make the Ethics in Government Act claiming to be unconstitutional? Even pick a Trump judge of your liking to do so. And then see how far that gets you. I would bet it won't get you very far.

The point is you don't know it as well as you think you do Blues. Never have and quite frankly, never will.

 

There are federal rules and there are state rules. State rules are based on how the election is run, whether it is local, state or federal. When it comes to federal office holders who are running, the FEC and its rules are in the jurisdiction. Every candidate for US Congress, Senate, Senate appointee, and President/Vice President, is required to provide financial data to the FEC when they run. If they hold office, must do so every year while they hold office. You have no idea what is and what is required at federal or state level and cannot determine when one jurisdiction begins and one ends.

This is not a constitutional amendment issue here. It is a necessary and proper clause and equal protection clause. If those two are met, it is constitutional. And this is not something that forces states on how they run the election or who the candidate is for national office. It is a federal jurisdiction on federal offices only. States only get involved in who decides to vote, when, where, and to what extent.

 

And as I said early that has never been tested at the SCOTUS. What do you think would happen if a candidate refused to submit one. What would be the enforcement action?

Same with this security test, what do they do give a thumbs up or thumbs down? Information in background security checks is HIGHLY protected information.

A financial disclosure is information provided BY the person and they know exactly what it is and the government does not investigate and announce whether the person is an embezzler or something or gives a thumbs or thumbs down.

I wouldn't have standing in such a lawsuit.

And by your interpretation of the necessary and proper clause we may as well get rid of the Constitution including the Bill of Rights as we would all simply be at the mercy of the Congress. Elections for President are STATE matters the Congress has no necessary and proper function in those elections.

 

Should potential presidential candidates undergo a security risk assessment?
Seems like a complete waste of the Constitution amendment process.

 

Most people don't even do their own taxes. Do you really think they would have a clue what they are looking at when a person is involved in multiple business, have a stack of K-1s, and 196 pages to their tax return?

An audited compilation would be more educational, Personal Financial Statements that show percentage of involvement, overall value, other partners, and unincorporated income sources would be fine for those who have a financial background.

 

True it's never been tested. But right now, it is the law of the land, which means it is constitutional based on the Constitutional Process. And I said, bring a suit to challenge that law is unconstitutional and see how far it will get you. I will give you a hint, not very far.

 

I don't have standing to file the lawsuit.............if a candidate or party filed a lawsuit then.............

I think it would get as far as the SCOTUS and the same questions, which you dodged, you come up.

What do you think would happen if a candidate refused to submit one. What would be the enforcement action?

Same with this security test, what do they do give a thumbs up or thumbs down? Information in background security checks is HIGHLY protected information.

A financial disclosure is information provided BY the person and they know exactly what it is and the government does not investigate and announce whether the person is an embezzler or something or gives a thumbs or thumbs down.

And to get on a ballot in a State is a State issue. I already pointed out that the FEC financial disclosure does not specific the President and Vice-President and the difference between a candidate filing a financial disclosure form and requiring a background TEST for qualification. You have no idea who elections are run and how Presidents and VP are elected and how the Constitution applies and how to bake bread.......................see I can also simply declare what you do not know.

 

That information is already on the FEC financial disclosure form you don't need a tax return. Which forms list the bribery and extortion.

BTW Biden released his tax returns did it show the foreign money Hunter was funneling to him paying his mortgage and home improvement and other bills?