Legally, probably. But in the US, "legally" is enforced by the executive, and that's who's telling them to comply.
To be clear, Security Clearances is just an EO thing. The actual laws just speak about things being critical to national security and don't use the words like "Top Secret" and etc. The whole actually labeling things "Top Secret" and etc started off with Clinton [1] but then Bush [2] and Obama [3] modified the rules around classification. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_12958 [2]: https://en.wikiped…
"Top Secret" goes back a long ways, to before WWII I believe.
I actually believe the executive branch should actually control the executive branch.
Then you should likewise believe that the legislative branch should continue to determine how funds are allocated, and which agencies and departments are created and continue to function. Let's not be disingenuous.
The U.S. Digital Service (which is what DOGE actually is) does have a budget allocated by Congress.
DOGE is finding monies are being spent without Congressional authorization, and is stopping that, exactly as you asked for. The president is also stopping expenditures that are allocated by Congress -- many presidents have done this.
Then you should likewise believe that the legislative branch should continue to determine how funds are allocated, and which agencies and departments are created and continue to function. Let's not be disingenuous.
I don't think these two things necessarily go hand in hand. If the head of the executive branch should have absolute control over the branch, as the above user suggested, then if congress wants to control government agencies that are currently in the executive branch, those agencies should be placed outside of the executive into a different category that is either under the legislative branch or shared with the execu…
The Constitution does not provide for agencies in the legislative branch with power over the executive branch. Congress itself does have power over the executive, but mainly in that only it can pass laws, only it can raise revenue, only it can appropriate funds for expenditure, and, of course, only it can impeach executive officers and the president. Congress does not have the power to limit the president's executive orders to the executive branch agencies, for example.
If you think this data won’t be used to disenfranchise and target democratic voters and give the GOP perpetual rule, I have a bridge to sell you. “Oh no! Big mistake we cancelled hundreds of thousands of people from voting just before the election! It just happens to be 99.9% Democrats in swing states who all happen to be marked as dead in all government systems!” It will be similar to Cambridge Analytica - with all…
The States operate their voter registration rolls, not the president.
The last time this topic came up, I manually and then with AI analyzed 13 articles talking about 'read/write' access - and all of it was 2nd or 3rd party info from anonymous sources. Reading this article it appears on the surface to be a little more conclusive... but once you peel back ther layers, we are back to square one. There are many red flags still that make me question the reliability of this: the senior USAI…
I find it wild that apparently there is no law onto which government workers can cling to refuse these requests. Is it all just based on conventions, goodwill and culture?
The enforcement of these laws should be a function of the executive. There are ways for the supreme court or congress to intervene when the executive isn't doing their job. Sadly that requires them to believe a series of checks and balances is necessary. Given that it is down to the voters, and they thought a racist, rapist, conman should be president giving them the power of the executive - which has been growing in…
> Given that it is down to the voters, and they thought a racist, rapist, conman should be president giving them the power of the executive - which has been growing increasingly powerful for my adult lifetime.
It's this kind of contempt that got him elected. You have no empathy or interest in the will of the people. Maybe if you talked with some of them, you'd understand their grievances. But something tells me you'd sooner ironically prejudicially dismiss them all as racist bigots.
If you think this data won’t be used to disenfranchise and target democratic voters and give the GOP perpetual rule, I have a bridge to sell you. “Oh no! Big mistake we cancelled hundreds of thousands of people from voting just before the election! It just happens to be 99.9% Democrats in swing states who all happen to be marked as dead in all government systems!” It will be similar to Cambridge Analytica - with all…
The States operate their voter registration rolls, not the president.
This doesn’t prevent every single person in the US (almost anyway) from being profiled and having ads and propaganda targeted against them.
Which country and what law are you referring to? Laws rarely include technical language like SQL joins.
They obviously didn't mean the laws prevent sql joins directly. Those prevent data aggregation, which in practice prevent various technical implementations of that.
Another very negative long-term effect of all of this is how is the government going to recruit talent in the future? How many people, who have good prospects elsewhere, are going to work for a government agency -- usually a lower pay -- to put up with shit like this that doesn't even happen in industry? Would you? Sure there are sometimes mass layoffs that are handled pretty badly in industry, but not these Gestapo-…
> How many people, who have good prospects elsewhere, are going to work for a government agency -- usually a lower pay -- to put up with shit like this that doesn't even happen in industry? Would you? You could remove the "to put up with shit like this" part and the answer would still be "nobody". You have to remove the "who have good prospects elsewhere" part for it to make sense.
well, there are people with good prospects elsewhere who take gov positions out of civic duty and also because it is typically longer term and you're less likely to get laid off for no reason
Yeah 99% is sour grapes from the other team. I like what doge has turned up so far and will give them the benefit of the doubt. My wife is a long time liberal Democrat and even she admits the main problem is Musk is just doing out in the open what is usually done behind closed doors and people don’t like it.
> Yeah 99% is sour grapes from the other team. I like what doge has turned up so far and will give them the benefit of the doubt.
This is peak ostriching. They haven't turned up anything so far, they've just been making monumental messes and lying about progress.