No, Connies - Hillary is not going to have her security clearance revoked

[csense]

If someone is specifically barred from getting a security for something they've specifically done, it's a punishment for that action.

Restrictions by their very nature are specific. I'm not sure you even understand what you're talking about, but getting back to your point, criminal background checks could also be argued to be a punishment for something someone has previously done. I doubt you would consider CBC to be unconstitutional.

 

[csense]

No. What the Constitution says is no law can be passed to punish someone for something they've done prior to the law being passed.

But revocation of a security clearance isn't a punishment within the criminal code, neither does it change that code. That is the threshold I think you need to pass through and I don't see you doing that in your argument...

 

[Paperview]

In addition to that stupid unconstitutional bill dumb senate connies tried to introduce -- Paul Ryan wrote a letter to the DNI, asking him to deny intelligence briefings to Hillary Clinton for the rest of the 2016 campaign.

http://www.speaker.gov/sites/speaker...rToClapper.pdf

Today, Clapper told him to pound sand.

"Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, in a letter to Mr. Ryan, wrote, “I do not intend to withhold briefings from any officially nominated, eligible candidate,” according to a copy of the letter reviewed by The Wall Street Journal."

Hillary Clinton Will Receive Intelligence Briefings Despite GOP Pressure, Official Says

 

[Paperview]

But revocation of a security clearance isn't a punishment within the criminal code, neither does it change that code. That is the threshold I think you need to pass through and I don't see you doing that in your argument...

Here, let Giordano 'splain it to you:

"Congress can pass laws establishing rules to be followed by groups of people, but they cannot convict individuals of violating these rules; in most cases a court of law then must determine if a given individual subsequently violated one of these laws and assign the suitable punishment.

Some of these laws authorize a governmental agency to establish the details of the rules to be followed and to create administrative punishments for their violation, although most often even these administrative sanctions can be appealed to a court of law. Other than very defined exceptions such as impeachment, Congress cannot declare any individual as guilty of a crime and punish them.

As to the concept of "it is not punishment it is loss of a privilege." The key here is actually the illegality of a congress directing a law against a specific individual and simultaneously declaring them to be guilty. Congress cannot legally pass a law specifically removing my privilege to drive a car.
...
And although not "automatic," courts have held that taking away certain privileges that impact one's legal rights are indeed punishment. Removing a "privilege" necessary to be President of the USA is certainly one of these examples. "