=================
A public servant is generally a person who is employed by the government, either through appointment or e******n. Examples include, among others, police officers, paid and volunteer firefighters, health officers, the public works director and designees, city clerk and designees, code enforcement personnel, and other city personnel authorized to enforce city ordinances, statutes, and codes.

The following is one state's definition of a public servant:

Everyone who is a chief executive of, or a statutory officer or employee in, a Department in the Public Service is a public servant.

For the purposes of the E*******l Act, "public servant" is defined more broadly, notably including a person employed in the Education Service as defined in the State Sector Act.
The are also called public servants because they are hired to serve the people who pay their salaries and benefits.

The problems we have at present are the radical DEMS in Congress. They act like gods. arrogant, liars, abusive of their powers, corrupt, fraudulent, and behave like kings. They think they are above the law thus a gross violation of the constitution.

Anybody out of this employ are private citizens working in private sector or at home.
Private contractors of government offices are not public servants.

===================
That Birth Certificate requirement for Obama should have been enforced the fact the it is a constitutional requirement that the p**********l candidate must be a “natural born citizen” Because of Obama's mixed race, in addition that his natural father was a Kenyan foreign student in Hawaii. There should have been a protocol requiring his BC during the filing for p**********l aspiration. And rightly so that he was not a natural born citizen. He was born in Kenya based from various reliable sources. That is not natural born as stated in the Constitution.

Another candidate with questionable eligibility of being a "natural born" is Kamala Harris. 2020 United States p**********l e******n. Jacob Wohl claimed Harris was not eligible because her foreign-born parents were not naturalized United States citizens at the time of her birth. Therefore, Kamala Harris does not meet the "natural born" status.

It's painfully obvious why we keep getting screwed by our elected officials, since everyone missed the point. Arguing over the minutia, definitions, public vs private, blah, blah, blah.

Generations of Americans have allowed elected people to whittle away at our control over them, get us used to abuses of power and office and come to accept such behavior as their just due. We allow elected officials to raid the Treasury, pass laws that benefit themselves, avoid any and all oversight, all the while making us think there's nothing we can do about it.....................except elect someone else who will do the same damn thing.

Harris was born in the US. If her citizenship is invalid then the anchor baby question is mute.
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Sorry, trick question, since the answer is in the question itself. Despite the generations of apathy and ignorance leading to the opposite, elected officials are still public servants. As with any employer, the people have a right to examine their employees conduct, and for public servants - even their off time is subject to review. Elected officials do NOT have the right to claim privacy rules, since their behavior reflects upon their employers 24/7/365, in every circumstance and every area. If they don't want such scrutiny......................they should find another line of work.

Those elected officials who have business interests, unless there is a complete divesting of those interests, ALL of their business dealings are legally subject to the people's review. An elected official and business man/woman, may NOT claim privacy or executive privilege, since those dealings may impact their service. It is the people's right under the Constitution, to determine if conflicts of interest exist or not, and "trust me" or "take my word for it" are NOT and adequate defense.

From the highest office in the land to the lowest, the people's interests are paramount and superior to all other interests, and it is the PEOPLE who have the right to determine whether or not this is being upheld........and NOT at the polls. One group of citizens do not have the right to dismiss any other groups concerns over potential malfeasance.

The bottom line is this; Public servants behavior, decisions and conduct is subject to review at any time, for any reason. Public servants give up certain privacy rights for the privilege of serving, and if they are unwilling to do so, they must find employment elsewhere. There are NO provisions for secrecy from or by any branch of Government, from any other branch, as there are persons with sufficient security clearances to review any and ALL functions of every other branch or agency.

Public officials MUST avoid even the appearance of impropriety, and MUST respond with alacrity and completeness to any and all requests for documentation/testimony from the people's Representatives. If you haven't done anything wrong................................you should be eager to prove it.

Harris was born in the US. If her citizenship is invalid then the anchor baby question is mute.
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Sorry, trick question, since the answer is in the question itself. Despite the generations of apathy and ignorance leading to the opposite, elected officials are still public servants. As with any employer, the people have a right to examine their employees conduct, and for public servants - even their off time is subject to review. Elected officials do NOT have the right to claim privacy rules, since their behavior reflects upon their employers 24/7/365, in every circumstance and every area. If they don't want such scrutiny......................they should find another line of work.

Those elected officials who have business interests, unless there is a complete divesting of those interests, ALL of their business dealings are legally subject to the people's review. An elected official and business man/woman, may NOT claim privacy or executive privilege, since those dealings may impact their service. It is the people's right under the Constitution, to determine if conflicts of interest exist or not, and "trust me" or "take my word for it" are NOT and adequate defense.

From the highest office in the land to the lowest, the people's interests are paramount and superior to all other interests, and it is the PEOPLE who have the right to determine whether or not this is being upheld........and NOT at the polls. One group of citizens do not have the right to dismiss any other groups concerns over potential malfeasance.

The bottom line is this; Public servants behavior, decisions and conduct is subject to review at any time, for any reason. Public servants give up certain privacy rights for the privilege of serving, and if they are unwilling to do so, they must find employment elsewhere. There are NO provisions for secrecy from or by any branch of Government, from any other branch, as there are persons with sufficient security clearances to review any and ALL functions of every other branch or agency.

Public officials MUST avoid even the appearance of impropriety, and MUST respond with alacrity and completeness to any and all requests for documentation/testimony from the people's Representatives. If you haven't done anything wrong................................you should be eager to prove it.

Political figures shouldn’t have to show everyone their taxes anymore than you or I should have to. It’s none of our business. Trumps taxes are his own and he is under no obligation to go handing the whole world a copy if he chooses not to. Besides, if the democrats are looking to find out where he spent his money, and with whom, a financial statement would be so much more informative. Trump has offered to do that.

The democrats are not really looking to see his taxes, they just want the whole world to hear Trump say he won’t give them up.