[jjoonathan]

A potential spy does (potentially) subvert democracy. But removing an elected official from office definitely subverts democracy. You need to be pretty darn certain of the former before the latter becomes the lesser of two evils. Assuming my numbers are correct, "security risk" is far too poor of a standard to decide in favor of removal from office.

On the other hand, it sure is a handy standard if your actual goal is to remove your opponents from office...

[SamReidHughes]

What elected officials are you talking about?

[dalke]

Consider Victor Berger, elected as a Representative from Wisconsin in 1918. The House refused to let him serve, since he was a convicted felon (he violated the horrid Espionage Act) and war opponent.

This was justified by Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment:

> No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.

Following the logic that birthed the foul Espionage Act, "not wanting to go to war" = "aiding the enemy", hence Berger wasn't seated in 1919 nor, after rewinning the election, in 1920.

He was a Socialist, not a Communist. Not that it really matters; an anti-war Communist would have had no better chance.

That said, I'm as confused as you about jjoonathan' comment, as removing (or at least preventing) elected officials from holding office was at best a contingency plan during the Red Scares.