Does having a power to do something give you the right to do something?

[Stormy Daniels]

This is a problem that has been building for years, at least as far back as Karl Rove using GWB to expand the Presidency. We can't blame Donald, he is just the manifestation of the people's failure to remain diligent against government abuse.

Deeply rooted in the American identity is a discomfort with the potential of power to be wielded in ways that offend the dignity of the individual (otherwise known as freedom). Our founders recognized that a government must be powerful enough to be effective at promoting a strong and prosperous nation, but that those powers must be checked because the same power that allows government to accomplish its mission can just as easily be used to the personal profit of officials, or to the detriment of the people in general.

While partisan politics has never been a sugar and spice affair, for most of our history elected officials have largely sought to govern on a premise of what an American government should do. They often disagreed and there were frequently bad apples among the bunch, but in most instances our government has managed to preserve a general philosophy of containing the wielding of power to what should be exercised. Likely, the greatest containing force was the willingness of the people to inflict a backlash.

But we've lost touch with those principles. In the 21st century, power itself is its own justification. Our government increasingly exercises power because it can, and the fact that it can wield a power is seen as giving it the right to wield power upon any whim of the person or people holding that capacity. The perception of a limited government of checks and balances has changed in the American mind. In earlier times it seems that checks and balances were seen as just one method of preventing a government from abusing power. Now they are the determinative factor where many people rest their heads. As if their existence is enough to validate that an exercise of power is not abusive or not corrupt. To listen to some people talk, they seem to think that the Framers wanted governmental power to be abused.

But the very concept of abusing power entails a use of power you can use, but you should not have used in the way that you did. Just because you have the power to do something does not mean that you have the right to do it. There is no principle underlying the definition of Americana more than this fact. The constructing of rules in one or another form is not an invitation to leverage the construction into a nullification of the principles that provide a foundation for our approach to government. No governmental body, nor any officer, is so empowered that they are permitted to wield their office to any means whatsoever. If they do so, then they are in breach our highest law. The constitution does not grant any officer immunity to abuse power as long as it stays within a given scope.

The President may have the power to grant or remove security clearances. But that does not give him the right to do so in retaliation for a citizen exercising free speech. The President may have the power to fire the Special Counsel, but that does not mean he has the right to do so. We must once again embrace this distinction between government have the power to do something and having a right to do so. If fail to do so, we will finally be surrendering to George III.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

I read this entire diatribe just to find out it’s another security clearances thread. Son of a bitch.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

I read this entire diatribe just to find out it’s another security clearances thread. Son of a bitch.

If that's what you think, then you have the reading comprehension of a grade schooler.

 

[easyt65]

Does having a power to do something give you the right to do something?

NO!

 

[tinydancer]

Bullshit premise that Trump removed Brennan's clearance in retaliation for criticism.

 

[OKTexas]

This is a problem that has been building for years, at least as far back as Karl Rove using GWB to expand the Presidency. We can't blame Donald, he is just the manifestation of the people's failure to remain diligent against government abuse.

Deeply rooted in the American identity is a discomfort with the potential of power to be wielded in ways that offend the dignity of the individual (otherwise known as freedom). Our founders recognized that a government must be powerful enough to be effective at promoting a strong and prosperous nation, but that those powers must be checked because the same power that allows government to accomplish its mission can just as easily be used to the personal profit of officials, or to the detriment of the people in general.

While partisan politics has never been a sugar and spice affair, for most of our history elected officials have largely sought to govern on a premise of what an American government should do. They often disagreed and there were frequently bad apples among the bunch, but in most instances our government has managed to preserve a general philosophy of containing the wielding of power to what should be exercised. Likely, the greatest containing force was the willingness of the people to inflict a backlash.

But we've lost touch with those principles. In the 21st century, power itself is its own justification. Our government increasingly exercises power because it can, and the fact that it can wield a power is seen as giving it the right to wield power upon any whim of the person or people holding that capacity. The perception of a limited government of checks and balances has changed in the American mind. In earlier times it seems that checks and balances were seen as just one method of preventing a government from abusing power. Now they are the determinative factor where many people rest their heads. As if their existence is enough to validate that an exercise of power is not abusive or not corrupt. To listen to some people talk, they seem to think that the Framers wanted governmental power to be abused.

But the very concept of abusing power entails a use of power you can use, but you should not have used in the way that you did. Just because you have the power to do something does not mean that you have the right to do it. There is no principle underlying the definition of Americana more than this fact. The constructing of rules in one or another form is not an invitation to leverage the construction into a nullification of the principles that provide a foundation for our approach to government. No governmental body, nor any officer, is so empowered that they are permitted to wield their office to any means whatsoever. If they do so, then they are in breach our highest law. The constitution does not grant any officer immunity to abuse power as long as it stays within a given scope.

The President may have the power to grant or remove security clearances. But that does not give him the right to do so in retaliation for a citizen exercising free speech. The President may have the power to fire the Special Counsel, but that does not mean he has the right to do so. We must once again embrace this distinction between government have the power to do something and having a right to do so. If fail to do so, we will finally be surrendering to George III.

Well just getting to the final sentence made it all worthwhile. The insight into the drug addled mind that could produce such a sentence is just priceless. So without further delay, I give you the final sentence.

If fail to do so, we will finally be surrendering to George III.

LMAO

.

 

[jc456]

Who the fk cares what happened to Brennan he can talk all fking day, what he’s telling me instead is he was discussing classified information. That is all he lost, the ability to read classified documents. Anyone?

 

[depotoo]

Tell me how his free speech is being suppressed? Unless you consider classified info a free for all?

This is a problem that has been building for years, at least as far back as Karl Rove using GWB to expand the Presidency. We can't blame Donald, he is just the manifestation of the people's failure to remain diligent against government abuse.

Deeply rooted in the American identity is a discomfort with the potential of power to be wielded in ways that offend the dignity of the individual (otherwise known as freedom). Our founders recognized that a government must be powerful enough to be effective at promoting a strong and prosperous nation, but that those powers must be checked because the same power that allows government to accomplish its mission can just as easily be used to the personal profit of officials, or to the detriment of the people in general.

While partisan politics has never been a sugar and spice affair, for most of our history elected officials have largely sought to govern on a premise of what an American government should do. They often disagreed and there were frequently bad apples among the bunch, but in most instances our government has managed to preserve a general philosophy of containing the wielding of power to what should be exercised. Likely, the greatest containing force was the willingness of the people to inflict a backlash.

But we've lost touch with those principles. In the 21st century, power itself is its own justification. Our government increasingly exercises power because it can, and the fact that it can wield a power is seen as giving it the right to wield power upon any whim of the person or people holding that capacity. The perception of a limited government of checks and balances has changed in the American mind. In earlier times it seems that checks and balances were seen as just one method of preventing a government from abusing power. Now they are the determinative factor where many people rest their heads. As if their existence is enough to validate that an exercise of power is not abusive or not corrupt. To listen to some people talk, they seem to think that the Framers wanted governmental power to be abused.

But the very concept of abusing power entails a use of power you can use, but you should not have used in the way that you did. Just because you have the power to do something does not mean that you have the right to do it. There is no principle underlying the definition of Americana more than this fact. The constructing of rules in one or another form is not an invitation to leverage the construction into a nullification of the principles that provide a foundation for our approach to government. No governmental body, nor any officer, is so empowered that they are permitted to wield their office to any means whatsoever. If they do so, then they are in breach our highest law. The constitution does not grant any officer immunity to abuse power as long as it stays within a given scope.

The President may have the power to grant or remove security clearances. But that does not give him the right to do so in retaliation for a citizen exercising free speech. The President may have the power to fire the Special Counsel, but that does not mean he has the right to do so. We must once again embrace this distinction between government have the power to do something and having a right to do so. If fail to do so, we will finally be surrendering to George III.

 

[OldLady]

I read this entire diatribe just to find out it’s another security clearances thread. Son of a bitch.

If that's what you think, then you have the reading comprehension of a grade schooler.

Many things, not only the President. Like refusing to advise and consent on Garland. There are many things and not just the President is guilty.
Great OP. Did you write it?

 

[koshergrl]

Haha I told you.

All of the left's complaints are about Trump behaving lawfully.

Leftists hate the law..and even more than they hate the law..they hate people who abide by it.

 

[jc456]

Tell me how his free speech is being suppressed? Unless you consider classified info a free for all?

This is a problem that has been building for years, at least as far back as Karl Rove using GWB to expand the Presidency. We can't blame Donald, he is just the manifestation of the people's failure to remain diligent against government abuse.

Deeply rooted in the American identity is a discomfort with the potential of power to be wielded in ways that offend the dignity of the individual (otherwise known as freedom). Our founders recognized that a government must be powerful enough to be effective at promoting a strong and prosperous nation, but that those powers must be checked because the same power that allows government to accomplish its mission can just as easily be used to the personal profit of officials, or to the detriment of the people in general.

While partisan politics has never been a sugar and spice affair, for most of our history elected officials have largely sought to govern on a premise of what an American government should do. They often disagreed and there were frequently bad apples among the bunch, but in most instances our government has managed to preserve a general philosophy of containing the wielding of power to what should be exercised. Likely, the greatest containing force was the willingness of the people to inflict a backlash.

But we've lost touch with those principles. In the 21st century, power itself is its own justification. Our government increasingly exercises power because it can, and the fact that it can wield a power is seen as giving it the right to wield power upon any whim of the person or people holding that capacity. The perception of a limited government of checks and balances has changed in the American mind. In earlier times it seems that checks and balances were seen as just one method of preventing a government from abusing power. Now they are the determinative factor where many people rest their heads. As if their existence is enough to validate that an exercise of power is not abusive or not corrupt. To listen to some people talk, they seem to think that the Framers wanted governmental power to be abused.

But the very concept of abusing power entails a use of power you can use, but you should not have used in the way that you did. Just because you have the power to do something does not mean that you have the right to do it. There is no principle underlying the definition of Americana more than this fact. The constructing of rules in one or another form is not an invitation to leverage the construction into a nullification of the principles that provide a foundation for our approach to government. No governmental body, nor any officer, is so empowered that they are permitted to wield their office to any means whatsoever. If they do so, then they are in breach our highest law. The constitution does not grant any officer immunity to abuse power as long as it stays within a given scope.

The President may have the power to grant or remove security clearances. But that does not give him the right to do so in retaliation for a citizen exercising free speech. The President may have the power to fire the Special Counsel, but that does not mean he has the right to do so. We must once again embrace this distinction between government have the power to do something and having a right to do so. If fail to do so, we will finally be surrendering to George III.

Btw, where’s our free press at asking him what he feels he lost?

 

[FA_Q2]

I have always stated that if you give the government a power it will use it as far and wide as possible. It is what made the PA such a terrible law and now it is a permanent fixture in governmental power.

There is little means for an apathetic electorate to control the abuse of powers. This is why we should strive as much as possible to limit that power in the first place.

 

[night_son]

This is a problem that has been building for years, at least as far back as Karl Rove using GWB to expand the Presidency. We can't blame Donald, he is just the manifestation of the people's failure to remain diligent against government abuse.

Deeply rooted in the American identity is a discomfort with the potential of power to be wielded in ways that offend the dignity of the individual (otherwise known as freedom). Our founders recognized that a government must be powerful enough to be effective at promoting a strong and prosperous nation, but that those powers must be checked because the same power that allows government to accomplish its mission can just as easily be used to the personal profit of officials, or to the detriment of the people in general.

While partisan politics has never been a sugar and spice affair, for most of our history elected officials have largely sought to govern on a premise of what an American government should do. They often disagreed and there were frequently bad apples among the bunch, but in most instances our government has managed to preserve a general philosophy of containing the wielding of power to what should be exercised. Likely, the greatest containing force was the willingness of the people to inflict a backlash.

But we've lost touch with those principles. In the 21st century, power itself is its own justification. Our government increasingly exercises power because it can, and the fact that it can wield a power is seen as giving it the right to wield power upon any whim of the person or people holding that capacity. The perception of a limited government of checks and balances has changed in the American mind. In earlier times it seems that checks and balances were seen as just one method of preventing a government from abusing power. Now they are the determinative factor where many people rest their heads. As if their existence is enough to validate that an exercise of power is not abusive or not corrupt. To listen to some people talk, they seem to think that the Framers wanted governmental power to be abused.

But the very concept of abusing power entails a use of power you can use, but you should not have used in the way that you did. Just because you have the power to do something does not mean that you have the right to do it. There is no principle underlying the definition of Americana more than this fact. The constructing of rules in one or another form is not an invitation to leverage the construction into a nullification of the principles that provide a foundation for our approach to government. No governmental body, nor any officer, is so empowered that they are permitted to wield their office to any means whatsoever. If they do so, then they are in breach our highest law. The constitution does not grant any officer immunity to abuse power as long as it stays within a given scope.

The President may have the power to grant or remove security clearances. But that does not give him the right to do so in retaliation for a citizen exercising free speech. The President may have the power to fire the Special Counsel, but that does not mean he has the right to do so. We must once again embrace this distinction between government have the power to do something and having a right to do so. If fail to do so, we will finally be surrendering to George III.

Thank you for this well written and thought-provoking piece.

From a judicial branch point of view one could point out perhaps the last great and terrible means of checking and balancing federal and state power--outside the will of the people-- in the form of the American judiciary. While we the people and those officials elected above us can never quite be certain what the hot rod judge will do or for what reasons, judges wield immense power over laws, our election system, policies, doctrines--even the practice and political manifestations of ideologies. The modern judge, even one sitting a lower level court, can, with varying degrees of temporariness, control or decide the fate of executive orders. Problems arise however, in my opinion, when the opinions of one or a handful of justices can make decisions for the American people that directly affect millions--even tens of millions of lives--and continue to negatively do so for decades, meaning against the will of the majority. The judiciary is the cog on the gear who can stop the entire wheel from turning, or reverse its whole direction.

Secondly, sometimes leaders find themselves in command of small teams of other foot soldiers, and when granted with immense leeway to operate within a sphere whose boundaries seem out of focus at best,. can tend toward using such immense freedom in a strategical manner they think fits within a de facto standard operating procedure, and yet is an imagined or self-convinced overlay of legal parameters which exceed or overlap official ones. Sometimes a leader must choose between accomplishing the mission by any means necessary (going just barely outside the regulations or breaking them as needed) or staying within legal parameters at all times at the risk of failing the mission. In the end, after action reports, enemy casualty surveys, target damage assessments and debriefings will, when combined, create a clearer narrative of what really happened. Hindsight is, as they say, 20/20.

What we're seeing of the political power plays transpiring daily within the highest halls of American governmental power is a relentless knife fight between all three of its branches, and within that another knife fight between political parties, and within that yet another between severely incompatible ideologies--all while the uniting factor of all engaged combatants should be what's best for the American people and survival of the structural integrity of our nation.

Still more happening within the above battles are clashes of personality where what should be strictly impersonal, professional behavior and clinical adherence to the letter of legal procedure, is made very personal in the all out war of one personality trying to dominate another, or even the rest of them. Many politicians we have elected are not in the "game" for their constituents or the betterment of their nation, but rather for assurance of their places in history, personal fame and for the devil in the details of the promises they've made to the powers who helped them get elected, whose political and financial favors must now be repaid, at great cost to we the American people. Remember, not achieving a thing while in office can equate to preventing many other things from happening.

Did our President exceed professional standard and bearing in revoking Brennan's clearance? My guess is since we remain locked in the heat of the ongoing, relentless battle which is the Donald Trump presidency and the depthless venom of races to November and 2020, the much desired answer to that question will not be made available or clear until it is all over.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

This is a problem that has been building for years, at least as far back as Karl Rove using GWB to expand the Presidency. We can't blame Donald, he is just the manifestation of the people's failure to remain diligent against government abuse.

Deeply rooted in the American identity is a discomfort with the potential of power to be wielded in ways that offend the dignity of the individual (otherwise known as freedom). Our founders recognized that a government must be powerful enough to be effective at promoting a strong and prosperous nation, but that those powers must be checked because the same power that allows government to accomplish its mission can just as easily be used to the personal profit of officials, or to the detriment of the people in general.

While partisan politics has never been a sugar and spice affair, for most of our history elected officials have largely sought to govern on a premise of what an American government should do. They often disagreed and there were frequently bad apples among the bunch, but in most instances our government has managed to preserve a general philosophy of containing the wielding of power to what should be exercised. Likely, the greatest containing force was the willingness of the people to inflict a backlash.

But we've lost touch with those principles. In the 21st century, power itself is its own justification. Our government increasingly exercises power because it can, and the fact that it can wield a power is seen as giving it the right to wield power upon any whim of the person or people holding that capacity. The perception of a limited government of checks and balances has changed in the American mind. In earlier times it seems that checks and balances were seen as just one method of preventing a government from abusing power. Now they are the determinative factor where many people rest their heads. As if their existence is enough to validate that an exercise of power is not abusive or not corrupt. To listen to some people talk, they seem to think that the Framers wanted governmental power to be abused.

But the very concept of abusing power entails a use of power you can use, but you should not have used in the way that you did. Just because you have the power to do something does not mean that you have the right to do it. There is no principle underlying the definition of Americana more than this fact. The constructing of rules in one or another form is not an invitation to leverage the construction into a nullification of the principles that provide a foundation for our approach to government. No governmental body, nor any officer, is so empowered that they are permitted to wield their office to any means whatsoever. If they do so, then they are in breach our highest law. The constitution does not grant any officer immunity to abuse power as long as it stays within a given scope.

The President may have the power to grant or remove security clearances. But that does not give him the right to do so in retaliation for a citizen exercising free speech. The President may have the power to fire the Special Counsel, but that does not mean he has the right to do so. We must once again embrace this distinction between government have the power to do something and having a right to do so. If fail to do so, we will finally be surrendering to George III.

Your daily incoherent ramblings are proof you have the right and act on it.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Bullshit premise that Trump removed Brennan's clearance in retaliation for criticism.

Wouldn't care if he did. Why do retired personnel have security clearances to begin with?
They should lose them when their employment ends.

 

[fncceo]

If you have the power to do something, do you have the right?

Hell yeah, dog!

And if Darren doesn't like it, he can do his own, damn laundry.

 

[Avatar4321]

Just because you can do something doesn’t mean you should. With Great power comes great responsibility

 

[bripat9643]

This is a problem that has been building for years, at least as far back as Karl Rove using GWB to expand the Presidency. We can't blame Donald, he is just the manifestation of the people's failure to remain diligent against government abuse.

Deeply rooted in the American identity is a discomfort with the potential of power to be wielded in ways that offend the dignity of the individual (otherwise known as freedom). Our founders recognized that a government must be powerful enough to be effective at promoting a strong and prosperous nation, but that those powers must be checked because the same power that allows government to accomplish its mission can just as easily be used to the personal profit of officials, or to the detriment of the people in general.

While partisan politics has never been a sugar and spice affair, for most of our history elected officials have largely sought to govern on a premise of what an American government should do. They often disagreed and there were frequently bad apples among the bunch, but in most instances our government has managed to preserve a general philosophy of containing the wielding of power to what should be exercised. Likely, the greatest containing force was the willingness of the people to inflict a backlash.

But we've lost touch with those principles. In the 21st century, power itself is its own justification. Our government increasingly exercises power because it can, and the fact that it can wield a power is seen as giving it the right to wield power upon any whim of the person or people holding that capacity. The perception of a limited government of checks and balances has changed in the American mind. In earlier times it seems that checks and balances were seen as just one method of preventing a government from abusing power. Now they are the determinative factor where many people rest their heads. As if their existence is enough to validate that an exercise of power is not abusive or not corrupt. To listen to some people talk, they seem to think that the Framers wanted governmental power to be abused.

But the very concept of abusing power entails a use of power you can use, but you should not have used in the way that you did. Just because you have the power to do something does not mean that you have the right to do it. There is no principle underlying the definition of Americana more than this fact. The constructing of rules in one or another form is not an invitation to leverage the construction into a nullification of the principles that provide a foundation for our approach to government. No governmental body, nor any officer, is so empowered that they are permitted to wield their office to any means whatsoever. If they do so, then they are in breach our highest law. The constitution does not grant any officer immunity to abuse power as long as it stays within a given scope.

The President may have the power to grant or remove security clearances. But that does not give him the right to do so in retaliation for a citizen exercising free speech. The President may have the power to fire the Special Counsel, but that does not mean he has the right to do so. We must once again embrace this distinction between government have the power to do something and having a right to do so. If fail to do so, we will finally be surrendering to George III.

Wrong. He does have the right to fire the special counsel, and he does have the right to revoke Brennan's security clearance. Having the power to do it means he has the right to do it. What it doesn't mean is that a bunch of petulant douchebag snowflakes won't cry about it.

 

[fncceo]

Bullshit premise that Trump removed Brennan's clearance in retaliation for criticism.

Wouldn't care if he did. Why do retired personnel have security clearances to begin with?
They should lose them when their employment ends.

Many high-ranking military officers go on to have very lucrative jobs in retirement on the boards of various government contractors. They are a known face to the customer and spent a lifetime learning exactly which wheels need to be greased, what buttons need to be pressed, and where the skeletons are hidden.

Before Alexander Haig became Reagan's 'in charge' Chief of Staff, he sat on the boards of a dozen different companies at the same time.

 

[jc456]

Tell me how his free speech is being suppressed? Unless you consider classified info a free for all?

This is a problem that has been building for years, at least as far back as Karl Rove using GWB to expand the Presidency. We can't blame Donald, he is just the manifestation of the people's failure to remain diligent against government abuse.

Deeply rooted in the American identity is a discomfort with the potential of power to be wielded in ways that offend the dignity of the individual (otherwise known as freedom). Our founders recognized that a government must be powerful enough to be effective at promoting a strong and prosperous nation, but that those powers must be checked because the same power that allows government to accomplish its mission can just as easily be used to the personal profit of officials, or to the detriment of the people in general.

While partisan politics has never been a sugar and spice affair, for most of our history elected officials have largely sought to govern on a premise of what an American government should do. They often disagreed and there were frequently bad apples among the bunch, but in most instances our government has managed to preserve a general philosophy of containing the wielding of power to what should be exercised. Likely, the greatest containing force was the willingness of the people to inflict a backlash.

But we've lost touch with those principles. In the 21st century, power itself is its own justification. Our government increasingly exercises power because it can, and the fact that it can wield a power is seen as giving it the right to wield power upon any whim of the person or people holding that capacity. The perception of a limited government of checks and balances has changed in the American mind. In earlier times it seems that checks and balances were seen as just one method of preventing a government from abusing power. Now they are the determinative factor where many people rest their heads. As if their existence is enough to validate that an exercise of power is not abusive or not corrupt. To listen to some people talk, they seem to think that the Framers wanted governmental power to be abused.

But the very concept of abusing power entails a use of power you can use, but you should not have used in the way that you did. Just because you have the power to do something does not mean that you have the right to do it. There is no principle underlying the definition of Americana more than this fact. The constructing of rules in one or another form is not an invitation to leverage the construction into a nullification of the principles that provide a foundation for our approach to government. No governmental body, nor any officer, is so empowered that they are permitted to wield their office to any means whatsoever. If they do so, then they are in breach our highest law. The constitution does not grant any officer immunity to abuse power as long as it stays within a given scope.

The President may have the power to grant or remove security clearances. But that does not give him the right to do so in retaliation for a citizen exercising free speech. The President may have the power to fire the Special Counsel, but that does not mean he has the right to do so. We must once again embrace this distinction between government have the power to do something and having a right to do so. If fail to do so, we will finally be surrendering to George III.

Btw, where’s our free press at asking him what he feels he lost?

I mean seriously, where’s our press? Ask him sorry sir, why is losing security clearance impeding on your ability to use free speech? Seriously, no one else curious?