It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


shouldn't the president be required to pass an FBI background check?

page: 1

log in


posted on Oct, 27 2008 @ 01:10 PM
sen. obama (running for president) could not pass a background check to join the FBI, because of his radical, terrorist and anti-american connections.

now, i know the media has been giving him a huge break on this issue, but it's real, and although the media would like you to beleive that asking into obamas past is not relevant,

I think it IS very relevant

and if his past is so bad that he can't get into the FBI based on it, why the heck should we let him be president?

it's an honest question, note i have not brought mccain (also running for presidency) into this... i just want to know if any of you out there regard this as important also.

[edit on 023131p://upMonday by indigothefish]

posted on Oct, 27 2008 @ 01:11 PM
sorry, i forgot to really say the question...

shouldn't a candidate be required to pass this FBI background check??!

posted on Oct, 27 2008 @ 01:13 PM
No. The United States Constitution does not state this as a qualification for President.

If an exception was made for the FBI, what's to stop the government from imposing any other "check" or "litmus test" on the elected President of the United States.

I'm a firm constitutional libertarian...and the constitution clearly does not state this as a need.

posted on Oct, 27 2008 @ 01:47 PM
reply to post by MOFreemason

Absolutely correct! Also, remember; the FBI operates under 'presidential' authority. Giving the FBI power to exclude someone from running would be a 'hazard' in that an unscrupulous appointee in the bureau could influence the electoral process based on 'his or her judgment' alone.

The Constitutional requirements were made simple and straight forward, and should be an easy hurdle to jump for any American citizen.

posted on Oct, 27 2008 @ 01:52 PM
BIngo to both of you. I have a lot more distrust of the FBI and CIA and other alphabets, than I do the politicians themselves.

Now, if the American people, as a whole, wanted to amend the Constitution to more clearly define the minimal qualifications for a person running for POTUS, then that'd be fine with me. The agencies don't play with the same rulebook that the rest of us have to submit to. I think it'd be a very bad idea to put the FBI or any other agency in charge of vetting a potential President.

posted on Oct, 27 2008 @ 01:55 PM
FBI investigation is not warrented.However all pertainant information should be made public.We have to be able to put faith in our officials and have the right to know if there are questionable issues.

posted on Oct, 27 2008 @ 01:56 PM
Is this why the President (whomever) is excluded in highly secretive operations including the compartmentalised sections of black ops i.e. ET, because there is no thorough background check?

If the Presidential candidate had to pass an FBI/CIA type of background check, that would mean anyone with past drug use would automatically be disqualified.

posted on Oct, 27 2008 @ 02:04 PM
Are you kidding me? Anyone who is a member of congress has at some point passed a background check.

Are you promoting guilt by association?

posted on Oct, 27 2008 @ 04:22 PM
reply to post by indigothefish

I too think these questions are very relevant. It has been stated, and I agree, trusting the FBI with vetting potential candidates is a frightening proposition.

posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 07:24 PM
Absolutely and probably most USA citizens think he has. Why doesn't the news media talk about this???? From what I have been reading on Google, it worries me!

top topics


log in