I'm not sure why you chose to have an aggressive response to my comment. I started it by saying that 'it was news to me'. The long and well-sourced article describes how the Intelligence Community has twisted the 'superior' and 'inferior' aspects of the Executive branch such that - as it stands today - the President does not have the unilateral ability to declassify (whether by law or by 'common practice').
Based on your snarky comment to me, it seems that you fully understand that -- so how could you say that I 'misrepresented' anything?
Whether by law or practice, it is not (currently) 'understood' that a President can unilaterally declassify. He 'requests it', and (if the IC says they 'refused') it is not declassified. (I think it's an illegitimate power grab, but if that power has been usurped, it is something we should be aware of. Do you mistakenly think that recognizing the fact of a power grab somehow makes me 'on their side'?)
Now perhaps there are specific laws that clearly spell out that the President has such unilateral power, and perhaps those original laws have not been 'overwritten' by new ones, but that doesn't appear to be the case (per the article).
Our quest here in this forum is to research, and -- importantly -- to 'get it right'. I stand by my 'prudent' comment to be cautious and aware that the 'common understanding' of Presidential autonomy in this situation might not be the (current) 'law of the land'.
Do you know for a fact that it is? Can you cite the source? Can you confirm that there haven't been any 'overriding' laws/statues/directives -- passed by Congress -- that have taken the President's power away?
I'm not sure why you chose to have an aggressive response to my comment. I started it by saying that 'it was news to me'. The long and well-sourced article describes how the Intelligence Community has twisted the 'superior' and 'inferior' aspects of the Executive branch such that - as it stands today - the President does not have the unilateral ability to declassify (whether by law or by 'common practice').
Based on your snarky comment to me, it seems that you fully understand that -- so how could you say that I 'misrepresented' anything?
Whether by law or practice, it is not (currently) 'understood' that a President can unilaterally declassify. He 'requests it', and (if the IC says they 'refused') it is not declassified. (I think it's an illegitimate power grab, but if that power has been usurped, it is something we should be aware of.)
Now perhaps there are specific laws that clearly spell out that the President has such unilateral power, and perhaps those original laws have not been 'overwritten' by new ones, but that doesn't appear to be the case (per the article).
Our quest here in this forum is to research, and -- importantly -- to 'get it right'. I stand by my 'prudent' comment to be cautious and aware that the 'common understanding' of Presidential autonomy in this situation might not be the (current) 'law of the land'.
Do you know for a fact that it is? Can you cite the source? Can you confirm that there haven't been any 'overriding' laws/statues/directives -- passed by Congress -- that have taken the President's power away?
I'm not sure why you chose to have an aggressive response to my comment. I started it by saying that 'it was news to me'. The long and well-sourced article describes how the Intelligence Community has twisted the 'superior' and 'inferior' aspects of the Executive branch such that - as it stands today - the President does not have the unilateral ability to declassify (whether by law or by 'common practice').
Based on your snarky comment to me, it seems that you fully understand that -- so why did you feel the need to say that I was 'wrong'?
Whether by law or practice, it is not (currently) 'understood' that a President can unilaterally declassify. He 'requests it', and (if the IC says they 'refused') it is not declassified. (I think it's an illegitimate power grab, but if that power has been usurped, it is something we should be aware of.)
Now perhaps there are specific laws that clearly spell out that the President has such unilateral power, and perhaps those original laws have not been 'overwritten' by new ones, but that doesn't appear to be the case (per the article).
Our quest here in this forum is to research, and -- importantly -- to 'get it right'. I stand by my 'prudent' comment to be cautious and aware that the 'common understanding' of Presidential autonomy in this situation might not be the (current) 'law of the land'.
Do you know for a fact that it is? Can you cite the source? Can you confirm that there haven't been any 'overriding' laws/statues/directives -- passed by Congress -- that have taken the President's power away?