This is an automated archive made by the Lemmit Bot.
The original was posted on /r/ufos by /u/phr99 on 2024-11-18 16:29:02+00:00.
Original Title: Lester Nare: "A legal expert pointed out that the executive branch doesnt hold all the cards. The real power dynamic isn't about what the executive branch can do - it's about what we've all accepted they can do without challenge. This is undefined territory"
Once again im copy pasting the thread that @lesternare posted on X. Its a followup to the previous reddit post, about the executive branch holding all the cards.
Important clarification from my previous thread:
I said "the executive branch holds all the cards." A legal expert pointed out this isn't actually true - and perpetuating this belief might actively harm disclosure efforts.
Here's why:
There's a crucial legal distinction between leaking classified info to the public and providing it to Congress.
Congress has explicit constitutional oversight powers - including over classified programs, SAPs, and even waived SAPs.
This is fundamental to separation of powers: Congress's oversight authority isn't a courtesy granted by the executive branch - it's a constitutional right.
The legal framework for Congressional disclosure varies by position.
The Lloyd-La Follette Act of 1912 explicitly protects federal employees' right to communicate with Congress - but this primarily covers Title 5 civil service employees.
For intelligence community and national defense personnel (Title 50 employees), it's different.
They're covered under the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act (ICWPA), which requires specific procedures through Inspectors General for Congressional disclosure.
This creates two parallel tracks for Congressional oversight: direct communication rights for civil service employees, and structured disclosure channels for intelligence personnel.
Different paths, same destination: Congress's constitutional oversight role.
Here's what's fascinating:
When these established channels are followed - whether Title 5 direct communication or Title 50 ICWPA procedures - there has never been a successful prosecution for bringing classified information to Congress:
Even more telling:
There's never been a successful court challenge to Congress's right to receive this information - even for the most sensitive Special Access Programs:
So how has the executive branch maintained such tight control?
Through:
- Administrative barriers
- Strict interpretation of disclosure channels
- Psychological conditioning
- Career implications
- Complex compartmentalization
But notably, not through proven legal enforcement:
Yes, SAPs and controlled access programs have special protections and restrictions.
But Congress's constitutional oversight authority applies even here - and the proper channels exist, even if they're often portrayed as impassable:
This means when we say "the executive holds all the cards," we're reinforcing a power dynamic that exists mainly because we believe it exists.
The procedures aren't barriers - their perceived impenetrability is.
The real question isn't whether mechanisms exist to bring classified UAP information to Congress - they do.
It's why we've accepted executive branch interpretations that make these mechanisms seem impossible to use:
The real power dynamic isn't about what the executive branch can do - it's about what we've all accepted they can do without challenge.
That's a very different conversation.
And to be clear: This isn't to say the outcome of a legal challenge is predetermined in Congress's favor.
The point is that this boundary between executive and legislative authority over classified info has never been fully adjudicated.
It's undefined territory - not settled executive branch dominance.
(This is not legal advice and open to further clarification.)