4 ms·

See TFA? “We swore to serve the American people and uphold our oath to the constitution across presidential administrations,” the 21 staffers wrote in a joint

• pvg 2y ago
  I still don't understand the question. Resignation because you don't feel you are able to fulfill the commitments of your job is a pretty standard way to publicly resign from some public service position in protest? There's probably a couple of hundred of years worth of examples.
  • dekhn 2y ago
    Don't feed the trolls. You're arguing with somebody who is being obtuse.
  • creer 2y ago
    Resigning in protest has been common over the years. Of course (like reading the TFA?). I don't see it being effective besides bringing attention to the problem. In this case, it's not like there isn't enough attention. There's already plenty of attention. During the first Trump round, there seemed to be an effort to resist and obstruct from the inside. In some cases pretty effective. That also seems to be something Trump is trying to fight this time around. He noticed. Still an option. A third method would be to remain in place, mitigate as possible, but mostly maintain the knowledge and experience in place to rebuild things at the next opportunity. I'm sure more ways can be dug out from history too. So, yeah, there are options.
    • sanderjd 2y ago
      > There's already plenty of attention. This is what you're missing. No there isn't. The more people who publicly pay a high personal cost to bring further attention to these problems, the more awareness there will be among the electorate. The "effort to resist and obstruct from the inside" was largely driven from the top, cabinet officials and agency heads pushing back, not from people at the edges ignoring or countermanding direction.
    • yibg 2y ago
      What would you do if your employer asked you to do something unethical? For me, I would resign. Yes, they'll probably find someone else that is willing and able to do it, but I don't want to do the unethical thing.
• sanderjd 2y ago
  When a federal employee is directed to do things that they feel violate their oath to the constitution, they have a few choices: 1. Violate their oath, 2. Refuse to follow the directive, 3. Resign. In my view resigning, especially a large coordinated resignation that receives at least some media attention, is often the best of those options.
• cmurf 2y ago
  They swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution from enemies foreign and domestic, 5 USC 3331. The oath is not to a president. If staffers think the administration is ordering them to conduct in illegalities, they're obligated to resign. IANAL but that statute doesn't protect them from remaining in the job and actively thwarting the administration's policies even if they are illegal. There are whistleblower laws that might provide such protections. But as this regime has asserted the concept of the unitary executive, it's likely the case that whistleblower laws are in abeyance for the duration of the regime.