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

[jc456]

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.

Mueller?

 

[basquebromance]

Trump's favorite presidential powers

having the power to put Stormy Daniels as your avatar doesnt mean you should do it!

 

[blackhawk]

That would depend on if the something is illegal if one can hotwire a car they would have the power to take it they don’t have the right to though.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

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

That's not what Donald says.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

Great OP. Did you write it?

I'm going to very politely ask you to explain your question.

 

[Hiryuu]

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.

The ability to view classified documents doesn't constitute free speech. On the other hand, the Constitution grants the President the authority to manage the Executive Branch. The power granted is a given, the right to do so is a given, your desires can be voiced at the ballot box or protesting.

 

[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.

The ability to view classified documents doesn't constitute free speech. On the other hand, the Constitution grants the President the authority to manage the Executive Branch. The power granted is a given, the right to do so is a given, your desires can be voiced at the ballot box.

The constitution does not say anything about having a right to a job. Furthermore, the constitution states that Congress shall have power to regulate commerce. That being the case, imagine that Congress passes a law that prohibits Sean Hannity from having a job, ever again. This would be within the realm of regulating commerce, and certainly there is no constitutional right to a job, so Hannity would be shit out of luck, eh? Well, not quite. If the purpose of the law is to retaliate against him for something he said, or to simply prevent him from using his job as a vehicle for speech, then his first amendment rights have been infringed all the same.

Brennan has no constitutional right to a security clearance. But revoking a security clearance in retaliation for criticism he, as a private citizen, has directed toward the President, or for engaging in official duties that investigated the President, is an abuse of power on its face, at the very least. Possibly it's a constitutional violation. Even deeper, it could potentially be viewed as an attack against Brennan's ability to accept new jobs. Former government employees with security clearances often work as private sector contractors in positions that require such clearances. The fact that they've already possess a clearance makes them highly sought after.

 

[AVG-JOE]

My favorite part of this so far is listening to The Donald talk on the radio about all the support his current advisors are giving him for the way he is punishing his critics and former advisors.

Well duh!

 

[Hiryuu]

The constitution does not say anything about having a right to a job. Furthermore, the constitution states that Congress shall have power to regulate commerce. That being the case, imagine that Congress passes a law that prohibits Sean Hannity from having a job, ever again. This would be within the realm of regulating commerce, and certainly there is no constitutional right to a job, so Hannity would be shit out of luck, eh? Well, not quite. If the purpose of the law is to retaliate against him for something he said, or to simply prevent him from using his job as a vehicle for speech, then his first amendment rights have been infringed all the same.

Brennan has no constitutional right to a security clearance. But revoking a security clearance in retaliation for criticism he, as a private citizen, has directed toward the President, or for engaging in official duties that investigated the President, is an abuse of power on its face, at the very least. Possibly it's a constitutional violation. Even deeper, it could potentially be viewed as an attack against Brennan's ability to accept new jobs. Former government employees with security clearances often work as private sector contractors in positions that require such clearances. The fact that they've already possess a clearance makes them highly sought after.

I didn't say anything about anyone having a right to a job. A security clearance gives you the ability to view classified documents. It doesn't give you the ability to share the contents of the classified documents with whomever you please. The Constitution doesn't guarantee you the right to view classified documents, and it gives the Executive branch the ability to manage that. If you have a problem with it, you have every right to voice your opinion, but it still won't change who has either the power or authority to manage security clearances.

 

[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.

The ability to view classified documents doesn't constitute free speech. On the other hand, the Constitution grants the President the authority to manage the Executive Branch. The power granted is a given, the right to do so is a given, your desires can be voiced at the ballot box.

The constitution does not say anything about having a right to a job. Furthermore, the constitution states that Congress shall have power to regulate commerce. That being the case, imagine that Congress passes a law that prohibits Sean Hannity from having a job, ever again. This would be within the realm of regulating commerce, and certainly there is no constitutional right to a job, so Hannity would be shit out of luck, eh? Well, not quite. If the purpose of the law is to retaliate against him for something he said, or to simply prevent him from using his job as a vehicle for speech, then his first amendment rights have been infringed all the same.

Brennan has no constitutional right to a security clearance. But revoking a security clearance in retaliation for criticism he, as a private citizen, has directed toward the President, or for engaging in official duties that investigated the President, is an abuse of power on its face, at the very least. Possibly it's a constitutional violation. Even deeper, it could potentially be viewed as an attack against Brennan's ability to accept new jobs. Former government employees with security clearances often work as private sector contractors in positions that require such clearances. The fact that they've already possess a clearance makes them highly sought after.

Wrong. The law requires anyone who has quit or required to behave the same as if they were still on the job if they wish to enjoy the privilege of retaining their security clearance. Brennan clearly violated that statute. Furthermore, it's apparent that he lied to Congress and has committed other crimes that would require the government to revoke his clearance, regardless.

 

[imawhosure]

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.

Stormy, you are being gaslighted, lol...……..and to think you are the one usually doing the gaslighting, but I digress.

NOBODY in Washington likes Brennan. In fact, they despise the man, did you know that?

And so you ask--------> besides the fact it is against Trump, why would all these swamp rats be crying in their expensive drinks, lol.

Want me to tell you? You sure? Are you ready?------------------------------------------------------->

MONEY, that is why, lol.

You see, everyone with a close to top security clearance is worth a lot of cash/deneiro/moola/pesos when they leave their government position. Why? Because it costs between 50 and 100,000 bucks for the investigation to get that clearance, nd it usually takes between 8 to 12 months to get it. Doubt me, check it out, do some homework, and quit letting these people gaslight you!

And so, company's who create contracts with the feds and need CLEARED people, pay them BIG BUCKS to come on board. Oh yes they do! (DONTCHA) And guess what those POOR people are seeing now-) Their gravy trains going poof, if security clearances start being pulled, and the company's having to dig into their pockets to get them recertified.

And who/whom would those people be Mz Rainstorm-) Why it would be all those nice people who ABUSED their place in government, IF it was proven that they had anything to do/knew about/or were involved in covering anything up, or even NOT BLOWING THE WHISTLE, as good Federal employees should, who took an oath; I remind you, to UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION!

And what administration is having the light of truth being shown upon it? Well, the Trump administration for sure, but who/whom else? Why that would be, THE OBAMA administration-)

So what you are actually hearing, is the SCREAMING of the swamp, cause they want their free cookies, lol. John Brennan is just the focal point, a bad victim, but they are doing the best they can to turn him into something as pure as the wind driven snow, lol.

But never fear, very soon they will have new victims to hang their hats on, Strolck, Paige, Clapper, and of course Comey. They will appear more sympathetic than Brennan at 1st, but trust me, not for long-)

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Brennan's criticism of the president turned into sedition when he accused Trump of committing crimes, treason, and saying he should be removed from office. By reason of his outlandish claims he was able to get paid by leftist media outlets.

He used his security clearance to gain access to information that he was not otherwise entitled to have. He used his security clearance to bolster his opinion as somehow being in the know. After having created this unique persona based on a security clearance, he monetized the clearance by selling it and himself to various leftist media outlets.

He does not need a security clearance to appear on CNN or MSNBC. He can still appear. He can still say anything he wants. He can even continue to peddle sedition. He just can't use his security clearance as a financial foundation.

 

[toobfreak]

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

Funny how these questions always come up AFTER a democrat is in office (being slapped down repeatedly by the SCOTUS), but never DURING.

 

[MACAULAY]

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

____________________

Its what these horseshit liberals do----assume their basic gripe is the ABSOLUTE TRUTH....not subject to discussion...and anyone who believes otherwise is a Forest Gump Redneck. Fuck them all.

Here, this Turd O. P. just plain assumes everybody agrees that John Brennan should have kept his security clearance...and launches off on his Social Justice Warrior Bullshit.

Plenty of people thought the reprobate Brennan should have lost his security clearance a long time ago; and plenty also believe he was at the heart of the Coup that was conducted; first to keep Trump from being elected; and second to destroy his presidency once the first part failed.

Sorry I wasted my time with this turd and his turd post.

 

[Hiryuu]

My favorite part of this so far is listening to The Donald talk on the radio about all the support his current advisors are giving him for the way he is punishing his critics and former advisors.

Well duh!

Hilarious, I know, they're passing up the chance at a great book deal.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

Brennan clearly violated that statute.

Point it out. What statute, and what did he do that violated it.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

A security clearance gives you the ability to view classified documents.

Not quite. This is a classic example of confusing necessary and sufficient causation.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

Brennan's criticism of the president turned into sedition when he accused Trump of committing crimes, treason, and saying he should be removed from office.

Uh, that is called free speech. Of course, it's a hard thing to understand when you are so in love with Russia as you and the rest of the cultists are.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Brennan's criticism of the president turned into sedition when he accused Trump of committing crimes, treason, and saying he should be removed from office.

Uh, that is called free speech. Of course, it's a hard thing to understand when you are so in love with Russia as you and the rest of the cultists are.

No one is preventing Brennan from speaking no matter how seditious he is. Democrats are the party of national suicide. No border. No wall. No USA at all has been said by no Russian, ever. It is an article of faith with democrats. What is so hard to understand about that?

 

[Hiryuu]

Not quite. This is a classic example of confusing necessary and sufficient causation.

A security clearance gives you the ability to view and utilize classified documents, or take part in discussions involving classified material with people who have the appropriate clearance, operate, repair, design or experiment with classified equipment or materials, at or below your security clearance level. It doesn't matter why you think President Trump removed his clearance, an explanation isn't required, and if it was required, they could classify the reason.

Ooops ... I forgot to add it can help you gain access to secure areas (but that's not guaranteed and up to whomever is in charge).