Remix clone Hacker News

In the USA, both are true. Civil servants can (and should) refuse to follow an order they think is unconstitutional, illegal, or simply unwise. But this won't stop them from being fired for insubordination. I don't think the courts will attempt to force the president to retain subordinates that are actively opposing him on the job.

▲

wat10000 2 days ago | parent [-]

If they can still be fired, then what does it even mean to say that they can refuse to follow an unconstitutional order? Refusal to follow any order is not illegal. If the consequences for refusing to follow an illegal order are the same as the consequences for refusing to follow a legal order, then there is no sense in saying civil servants can refuse illegal orders.

▲

dmatech 2 days ago | parent [-]

The consequences for following an illegal order include being sued, being held in contempt of court, or being criminally prosecuted by a subsequent administration. They don't have the same immunity that presidents do because they don't have a direct vesting of authority under Article II.

	▲	wat10000 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		Ok? The question is, in what sense are they allowed to refuse an illegal order, given that the consequences are the same as refusing to follow a legal order?