Dems wrong on White House security clearances

Desperately grasping at any political or procedural nitpicks they can find to impede the progress of the Trump administration, the gadflies who make up the Democrat contingent in Congress have recently charged presidential interference in the issue of granting security clearances.  In what they must feel is a true "gotcha" moment, these desperate Democrats have surfaced what they trumpet to be a whistleblower from the White House who claims that her authority to grant or deny clearances is being usurped by others in the Trump inner circle so as to ensure that members of that inner circle, meaning family members and close associates of the president, have the necessary clearances to participate in governance.

Democrats are nearly giddy with expectation that they have finally found Donald Trump in some violation of the nation's security laws.  They haven't.  A quick internet search could have spared them some major embarrassment, once again, by leading them directly to case law establishing unequivocally just how far off course they are.

Back in 1988, in Department of Navy v. Egan, the United States Supreme Court noted in its decision:

The President, after all, is the "Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States."  U.S. Const., Art. II, 2.  His authority to classify and control access to information bearing on national security and to determine whether an individual is sufficiently trustworthy to occupy a position in the Executive Branch that will give that person access to such information flows primarily from this constitutional investment of power in the President and exists quite apart from any explicit congressional grant.

Whoops — does that not state rather clearly what I read it to say?  Unless I'm mistaken, the U.S. Supreme Court has determined that it is the president, not some faceless bureaucrat swamp denizen with her territorial panties in a wad, who has the ultimate authority to determine who will be privy to the secure matters the president deems necessary to carry on his governance.  Mind you, I do not take this business of security clearances lightly, having held a secret clearance myself during my military service and understanding the need for caution and discretion.  That said, I also recognize that the commander-in-chief has every right to pick his own staff and advisers without interference from an obstructive Congress.

Apparently, so does the Supreme Court.  What is it they say about great minds running together?

Image: Gage Skidmore via Flickr.

Desperately grasping at any political or procedural nitpicks they can find to impede the progress of the Trump administration, the gadflies who make up the Democrat contingent in Congress have recently charged presidential interference in the issue of granting security clearances.  In what they must feel is a true "gotcha" moment, these desperate Democrats have surfaced what they trumpet to be a whistleblower from the White House who claims that her authority to grant or deny clearances is being usurped by others in the Trump inner circle so as to ensure that members of that inner circle, meaning family members and close associates of the president, have the necessary clearances to participate in governance.

Democrats are nearly giddy with expectation that they have finally found Donald Trump in some violation of the nation's security laws.  They haven't.  A quick internet search could have spared them some major embarrassment, once again, by leading them directly to case law establishing unequivocally just how far off course they are.

Back in 1988, in Department of Navy v. Egan, the United States Supreme Court noted in its decision:

The President, after all, is the "Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States."  U.S. Const., Art. II, 2.  His authority to classify and control access to information bearing on national security and to determine whether an individual is sufficiently trustworthy to occupy a position in the Executive Branch that will give that person access to such information flows primarily from this constitutional investment of power in the President and exists quite apart from any explicit congressional grant.

Whoops — does that not state rather clearly what I read it to say?  Unless I'm mistaken, the U.S. Supreme Court has determined that it is the president, not some faceless bureaucrat swamp denizen with her territorial panties in a wad, who has the ultimate authority to determine who will be privy to the secure matters the president deems necessary to carry on his governance.  Mind you, I do not take this business of security clearances lightly, having held a secret clearance myself during my military service and understanding the need for caution and discretion.  That said, I also recognize that the commander-in-chief has every right to pick his own staff and advisers without interference from an obstructive Congress.

Apparently, so does the Supreme Court.  What is it they say about great minds running together?

Image: Gage Skidmore via Flickr.