Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

JT45242

(2,259 posts)
Sun Jan 28, 2024, 11:36 PM Jan 28

Need a law requiring getting a security clearance to run for federal office...also teeth for lying on financial disclosu

If we had such a law we would never have been subjected to TFG, Boebert, MTG, Gaetz, Santos, etc.

If people with sketchy past would have to undergo the scrutiny that an administrative assistant in the state or justice department do, they would likely not run or be ruled out.

I'd bet a bunch of these criminals would stay away.

They should enforce a law of lying on financial disclosure documents would carry the same penalties as lying on a mortgage application and actually enforce it.


6 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Need a law requiring getting a security clearance to run for federal office...also teeth for lying on financial disclosu (Original Post) JT45242 Jan 28 OP
It would require a constitutional amendment. tritsofme Jan 28 #1
Why... JT45242 Jan 28 #3
Federal law cannot add extra-constitutional eligibility requirements. tritsofme Jan 28 #4
The latter one would just be a change to criminal laws, which would RockRaven Jan 28 #2
Great idea! marybourg Jan 29 #5
Trump couldn't get a security clearance himself yet he was able to just give doc03 Jan 29 #6

JT45242

(2,259 posts)
3. Why...
Sun Jan 28, 2024, 11:46 PM
Jan 28

We did not need a constitutional amendment for financial disclosure filing?

Call it an anti-corruption law, which is what it really is.

Other option would be no committee assignments without security clearance.

tritsofme

(17,373 posts)
4. Federal law cannot add extra-constitutional eligibility requirements.
Sun Jan 28, 2024, 11:49 PM
Jan 28

Each chamber could make whatever rules they like regarding committee membership.

RockRaven

(14,951 posts)
2. The latter one would just be a change to criminal laws, which would
Sun Jan 28, 2024, 11:42 PM
Jan 28

be easier, in theory... or would be if SCOTUS wasn't irredeemably conflicted because of their personal behavior in violating such a law (both past and future). They would declare it unconstitutional for "why? b/c fuck you that's why" reasons immediately.

marybourg

(12,609 posts)
5. Great idea!
Mon Jan 29, 2024, 12:54 AM
Jan 29
that way when tRump was in office his administration could have (would have) denied security clearances to every dem candidate.

doc03

(35,324 posts)
6. Trump couldn't get a security clearance himself yet he was able to just give
Mon Jan 29, 2024, 09:20 AM
Jan 29

a security clearance to his daughter and her husband and put them in his cabinet. That is crazy.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Need a law requiring gett...