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

[Stormy Daniels]

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).

Everything you just said is false. Can't be sure if you're lying or ignorant.

 

[Hiryuu]

Everything you just said is false. Can't be sure if you're lying or ignorant.

Yeah whatever Lulu; you can google security clearance at Wikipedia and tell what you just posted is a lie.

 

[imawhosure]

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).

Everything you just said is false. Can't be sure if you're lying or ignorant.

LOL, I notice, you didn't address the fact you were either gaslighted, or gaslighting yourself. Why I am I not surprised Mz Tornado-)

 

[FA_Q2]

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.

And the legislator has the power to impeach him.

 

[FA_Q2]

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.

And here really is the rub. His clearance can and should be revoked for those actions. It is not clear that is the case though.

 

[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.

And the legislator has the power to impeach him.

Tell us something we don't know.

 

[Dan Stubbs]

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.

Where in the Hell did you get the idea that a Security Clearance is a RIGHT the only place you could have learned that was in a Progressive training camp. When the job ends so does all so called rights.

 

[MeBelle]

Having the authority to 'do something' obviously gives one the 'right' to 'do something'.

 

[blastoff]

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

Wrong. It’s more than that. Being stripped of one’s security clearance means one has lost his first amendment right to free speech. I know because there’s scads of lamebrained idiots saying so.

 

[eagle1462010]

Clapper and Brennon Lied under Oath...............they were caught and should be tried for perjury.......
Patriots

 

[JakeStarkey]

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

That is a bull shit retort to a well founded OP and commentary.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Getting to the far right idiotic retorts made it all worthwhile. The insight into their drunken mindset that Trump is not punishing his enemies makes the clear thinking citizen laugh out loud.