Response. Just saying.
This is what it's all about. Lol. First time I actually paid attention to it. I easy wondering about all this. But it didn't rake up to rent space in my mind. Now I see why. It's kinda silly tbh. Clear the name. Grab hold of yourself. You seem very passionate, intelligent and energetic. We really need a person of your qualities to help us dig. Instead of this. Feel me Anon?
Under what article can the President impose MI take over investigations for the 3 letter agencies? What conditions must be present? Why is this so VERY important?
and
What Supreme Court case allows for the use of MI vs Congressional assembled and approved agencies?
Sessions said he WILL NOT Investigate hillary
Trump needs to do this
Exactly my thought too.
According to former United States Assistant Attorney General Walter E. Dellinger III, the Supreme Court and the Attorneys General have long interpreted the Take Care Clause to mean that the President has no inherent constitutional authority to suspend the enforcement of the laws, particularly of statutes.
Hmmm, I can think of recent Presidents who did not enforce some important immigration laws…
I wish he would enforce the Logan Act on the Kenyan. Time for a precedent to finally be set under that law.
Answer here, questions #93 and #101 and #22
You can convert the sheet to .xls and download it for faster/better browsing.
Love Q but was never able to find which case.
Hamdan v. Rumsfeld.
It's right there, question 22 and others. Look in the answer's columns.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamdan_v._Rumsfeld
E Pluribus Unum. The United States is a union. Everyone is bound by its laws.
https://rebrn.com/re/the-president-has-the-constitutional-authority-under-the-take-ca-3779375/
United States Supreme CourtCIA v. SIMS, (1985)No. 83-1075Argued: December 4, 1984Â Â Â Â Decided: April 16, 1985
[Â Footnote *Â ] Together with No. 83-1249, Sims et al. v. Central Intelligence Agency et al., also on certiorari to the same court.
Between 1953 and 1966, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) financed a research project, code-named MKULTRA, that was established to counter Soviet and Chinese advances in brainwashing and interrogation techniques. Subprojects were contracted out to various universities, research foundations, and similar institutions. In 1977, respondents in No. 83-1075 (hereafter respondents) filed a request with the CIA under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), seeking, inter alia, the names of the institutions and individuals who had performed the research under MKULTRA. Citing Exemption 3 of the FOIA - which provides that an agency need not disclose "matters that are . . . specifically exempted from disclosure by statute . . . provided that such statute . . . refers to particular types of matters to be withheld" - the CIA declined to disclose the requested information. The CIA invoked, as the exempting statute referred to in Exemption 3, 102(d)(3) of the National Security Act of 1947, which states that "the Director of Central Intelligence shall be responsible for protecting intelligence sources and methods from unauthorized disclosure." Respondents then filed suit under the FOIA in Federal District Court. Applying, as directed by the Court of Appeals on an earlier appeal, a definition of "intelligence sources" as meaning only those sources to which the CIA had to guarantee confidentiality in order to obtain the information, the District Court held that the identities of researchers who had received express guarantees of confidentiality need not be disclosed, and also exempted from disclosure other researchers on the ground that their work for the CIA, apart from MKULTRA, required that their identities remain secret. The court further held that there was no need to disclose the institutional affiliations of the individual researchers whose identities were exempt from disclosure. The Court of Appeals affirmed this latter holding, but reversed the District Court's ruling with respect to which individual researchers satisfied "the need-for-confidentiality" aspect of its formulation [471 U.S. 159, 160]   of exempt "intelligence sources." The Court of Appeals held that it was error automatically to exempt from disclosure those researchers to whom confidentiality had been promised, and that an individual qualifies as an "intelligence source" exempt from disclosure under the FOIA only when the CIA offers sufficient proof that it needs to protect its efforts in confidentiality in order to obtain the type of information provided by the researcher.
Between 1953 and 1966, the Central Intelligence Agency financed a wide-ranging project, code-named MKULTRA, concerned with "the research and development of chemical, biological, and radiological materials capable of employment in clandestine operations to control human behavior." 1 The [471 U.S. 159, 162]   program consisted of some 149 subprojects which the Agency contracted out to various universities, research foundations, and similar institutions. At least 80 institutions and 185 private researchers participated. Because the Agency funded MKULTRA indirectly, many of the participating individuals were unaware that they were dealing with the Agency.
MKULTRA was established to counter perceived Soviet and Chinese advances in brainwashing and interrogation techniques. Over the years the program included various medical and psychological experiments, some of which led to untoward results. 2 These aspects of MKULTRA surfaced publicly during the 1970's and became the subject of executive and congressional investigations. 3 Â
On August 22, 1977, John C. Sims, an attorney, and Sidney M. Wolfe, M.D., the director of the Public Citizen [471 U.S. 159, 163]   Health Research Group, 4 filed a request with the Central Intelligence Agency seeking certain information about MKULTRA. Respondents invoked the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552. Specifically, respondents sought the grant proposals and contracts awarded under the MKULTRA program and the names of the institutions and individuals that had performed research. 5 Â
Goof read.
Ugh. Good