They were prevented from following just policy, and were being forced to perform actions that go against professional ethics, politically driven prosecutions unconnected from fact or law.
People resigned to send the message to the public: the integrity of the office had been compromised, and the lawyers (lawyers!!) couldn't stay due to their ethics. This is a difficult thing to understand for people that lack ethics.
I as someone with power over you will repeatedly force you to do an illegal and or immoral act. I have doubt you have the balls to resign rather than follow along, but if you do resign I hope you don't say you were forced out. Be honest.
It is going to get a lot worse. Trump's eventual goal is to send the military to all Democrat-controlled cities. Back in September Trump gathered military leaders in a room and told them America is under "invasion from within". He said: "This is going to be a major part for some of the people in this room. That's a war too. It's a war from within."
They are demanding "show me your papers" to citizens, often chasing, arresting and jailing them for being brown, and turning the US into a police state.
Because they are Americans? Under the Fourth Amendment, police cannot demand ID from a pedestrian for no reason. Other constitution violations include 1st amendment (Rümeysa Öztürk), ICE memo allowing officers to enter homes without a judicial warrant (violation of 4th), denying due process (Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments), etc.
Doesn't matter. You can't suspend constitutional protections when they are inconvenient. And it isn't just violations of the constitution, it is also destroying our relationships with European allies, destroying the planet by ignoring climate change, destroying the environment, destroying our health, destroying American competitiveness by defunding research, destroying consumer protections, etc. And what you were asking, did you ask how bad it is, objectively?
Not sure constitution works like that, that a suspicious person can simply run and you can't check ID.
The opinion to allow visa holders as the Turkish person to exercise political activism is funny, too. Don't you think it's the citizens who the country should look after?
Europe is confused, but is finally coming around to understanding that they need to be able to protect themselves. Let's hope we make it on time :).
You can't really turn around climate without China and India. You may try to cripple yourself to attempt it though, but you'll lose even harder then.
I can also tell you that I've seen public funding on various science projects in EU. While it's convenient for the scientists to live off of these projects, then rarely if ever does much or any value come out of it. No companies nor products. Most of the "digital product" is provided to us by US companies, we don't come even close to having anything like it. EU leaders also somehow think that economic development is a matter of their "decision", but as career public servants they have little to no private experience, and just run public funds in "social circuits" that don't produce much.
The right for the Turkish person to engage in free speech either exists or not. If VISA holders don't have free speech then it must be advertised very clearly so people can avoid taking on a US Visa.
That's your interpretation of the constitution. There are other/more laws and circumstances that nuance the situation (you'll find these if you look into that case).
It's similar to the protesters interfering with law enforcement doing their work: you can't protest anywhere at any time. If you take this strict view of the constitution, you could do many currently illegal things, e.g get out of prison by simply hugging a prison guard and following him out, saying that you are protesting in this particular way; say that you are protesting 24/7 and whistle or make other noises throughout the night, which otherwise would be violate noise ordinance. And so on and so on.
You are commenting to the wrong post. The Turkish person wasn't in any rally, she didn't leak any state secrets, she simply wrote an essay criticizing Israel. Either visa holders have a right to free speech in which case this is illegal,or they don't have a right to free speech in which case it must be advertised far and wide so people can avoid visiting the USA.
No, the video gives nuances into how law and constitution works. I.e, regarding whether visa holders have the right to free speech or not, she was deemed not to. If you look into that case, you'll find the specific reasons.
