Re:Senators to Propose Ban on U.S. Lawmakers, Executive Bran...
by BurningFrog on Wednesday July 19, 2023 @10:41AM
(#36787191)
That doesn't put any legal obligation on the spouse though.
Re:Senators to Propose Ban on U.S. Lawmakers, Executive Bran...
by amalcon on Wednesday July 19, 2023 @12:33PM
(#36789153)
Correct, and I did say so. While "your spouse will lose his or her job if you do X, Y, or Z" is not technically a legal requirement, for most people it's a distinction without a difference.
Re:Senators to Propose Ban on U.S. Lawmakers, Executive Bran...
by galleywest200 on Wednesday July 19, 2023 @10:12AM
(#36786680)
> Last I heard, cannabis use is still relevant to this, even if you live in a state where it's legal.
The process of doing away with this entirely started last year: https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-spy-agencies-could-hire-for...
Re:Senators to Propose Ban on U.S. Lawmakers, Executive Bran...
by mschuster91 on Wednesday July 19, 2023 @10:21AM
(#36786833)
Makes sense now that it's legal and foreign/criminal actors can't extort people any more for being gay or smoking pot.
Re:Senators to Propose Ban on U.S. Lawmakers, Executive Bran...
by kevinventullo on Wednesday July 19, 2023 @10:36AM
(#36787100)
Well, a closeted person in a conservative part of the country might still be vulnerable to extortion. Makes me wonder if being openly out actually helps with getting security clearance.
I feel like there’s a comedy sketch in here…
Re:Senators to Propose Ban on U.S. Lawmakers, Executive Bran...
by massysett on Wednesday July 19, 2023 @10:35AM
(#36787090)
It is not legal. It is a violation of federal law.
Re:Senators to Propose Ban on U.S. Lawmakers, Executive Bran...
by mschuster91 on Wednesday July 19, 2023 @12:34PM
(#36789164)
Thing is, in a legal state there is no leverage for a bad actor, unless the US federal government changes its policy - but that's very unlikely under a Democrat government given they're pro federal legalization, and even under a hardliner like Trump the Republicans didn't dare touch the issue because it would counteract their entire "states rights" agenda and piss off a sizable amount of their own voters.
It's not really a legal obligation as such ("only" putting the job at risk), but it does cover rather a lot of jobs.