Sujit Choudhry works at the Center for Constitutional Transitions as the Director. He earned his Law degrees from the University of Oxford, Harvard Law School and the University of Toronto. Prior to this, he has served as an advisory party in the constitution building processes of countries such as South Africa, Egypt, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Ukraine, Libya, Tunisia, and Jordan. He has participated in a United Nations experts meeting in Geneva to discuss transitional justice and mass barbarism, hit dougsandler.com. Sujit Choudhry recently featured the act of the president in revoking security clearance for former security personnel. President Trump declared that he was putting into consideration, the revoking of all former officials of the national security. During the Annunciation of the initial list, the White House Press Secretary explained that the action was taken against the targeted individuals since they had monetized and politicized their security clearances and services to the public. Sujit notes that there are some individuals whose security clearances were not revoked since the individuals have a lot of useful knowledge from their in-depth experience which may be used to advise the security officials currently in office.
Click for more info, http://sujitchoudhry.com/about/.
Sujit Choudhry highlights a commentator’s opinion who argued that the president has unlimited authority to revoke a clearance, quoting the Supreme Court case Department of the Navy versus Egan of 1988. Sujit notes that the Court is reluctant in the issues involving the national security and Executive in military affairs unless the Congress states otherwise. The argument from the case supported the revocation of clearances by the president for whatever reason. Some interesting information stems out from the Webster versus Doe Case. A Central Intelligence Agency employee had his clearances revoked for being openly gay. This violated his rights had been violated under the Equal Protection Clauses and Due Process. Sujit Choudhry notes the court ruling that a customized constitutional claim could limit the authority to revoke security, see more news here on (Youtube.com). There are notable differences between the two cases and the intentions of the president. In the Webster Case, the revocation was made by the director of the Central Intelligence Agency and not the president. The revocation was also made in conformance to the director’s statutory authority which authorizes termination whenever deemed necessary or according to the interests of the state.