Should retired/replaced government officials retain their security clearances after leaving office?

Why? Most of them do not return to government work requiring such a clearance. Those that do can get another clearance if and when their government job requires it.

They do only the access is stopped. Your next position may not require the access. Your clearance only goes away if it expires and you don’t resubmit in a timely manner

Why?

Consider a security clearance as if it were a .50 caliber sniper's rifle issued to a trained sniper. It would be just as logical to have the sniper take his gun with him when he is discharged on the off chance he may be called back in service.

Having clearance holders wandering around hawking their superior value to news and TV outlets on the basis of a level of access for a specific job as if it were a certificate of achievement or superior status. Security clearances for retired personnel, or a sniper's rifle are not achievement awards, they are tools. They are for the convenience of the organization and its mission. Not for the increase of the individual's wealth.

Their existence unnecessarily exacerbates the Nation's security risks.
To have them actually creates a security liability of surplus people not in the organization having an implied interest in their old job.

No, absolutely not! Any other arguments are non-sense.

nope

If they need to be recalled or become a retired annuitant, the process of requalification is too long and costly.

When it comes to National Security Advisors the clearance level should be maintained. The reason is they are constantly being called in to help with situations that they were involved with prior to leaving their position. Also retired generals spend five years as military advisors and are constantly brought in for situations. I have seen both occur during my military career. Also many retirees work for the DoD because our retirement is crap!

If you vote for a Kremlin sponsored U.S. Presidential candidate and brag about it, if you attempt to frame/railroad a duly elected president, during and after the election, if you use or attempt to use said clearance for the purposes of self enrichment, (ie: a commentators job on say, CNN) then I would opine that you shouldn't have any more access to sensitive material than any other inmate at the federal penitentiary where you SHOULD be residing. The question alone would be ridiculous at any other time in history. My friends, when a major women's magazine names a 65 year old mentally ill MAN as "woman of the year" and anyone who questions such a thing is immediately branded a klansmen/Nazi, I have to say that the emperor truly has no clothes. I'm afraid if we don't get a handle on the absolute nonsense, lies and just general horseshit, that we may begin a process known as "circling the drain". (And it physically hurts me to say something like that)

Back in the 80s I was assigned to a surface ship. A certain “job” on a submarine required a certain amount of attention that, at the time, I was the only one available. The job only took about a week and required a secret clearance. It took longer to get the clearance than to complete the job. Once the job was complete, my clearance was pulled. I was never so glad to be rid of it. Everyone I knew was doggin me out wanting to know what I was doing. That was minor stuff. A secret/top secret clearance is a pain that grows the longer you have it. I DO NOT believe it is necessary for one to retain a clearance any longer than needed.

These people earned their security clearance, broke no laws or did anything against natural security, so leave them alone.