During
his first term in office, President Trump appointed several individuals
to his administration with a history of hostility towards the U.S.
Constitution and laws. Some of these appointees have even expressed
their intent to overturn the Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling,
which has allowed for unlimited contributions to political candidates by
corporations.
Trump Appointees Flouts the Hatch Act :
The first of the new administration's
flouting of the Hatch Act came with the confirmation of John Kelly, to
be Secretary of Homeland Security. Mr. Kelly, a former Marine, openly
questioned the separation of religion from the United States military.
According to The Washington Post, "Mr. Kelly said that the
military'should not be concerned about a person's religious beliefs.' He
added that 'there is no room for prejudice in our military' and that
there was no room for discrimination against anyone based on their
religious beliefs."
Just a few days after General Joseph
Carey was confirmed, another of President Trump's appointees,
Representative Mike Pompeo (R-KS), made a similar statement in a speech.
Mr. Pompeo stated, "The United States Army is a Christian Army, the Air
Force is a Christian Air Force and the Marines are a Christian Marine
Corps." While General Kelly and Representative Pompeo are not among the
new administration's flouting of the Hatch Act, their statements
represent an alarming trend. For anyone who is concerned about a future
violation of the Constitution, these statements need to raise red flags.
There
are several reasons why this should concern every American and the
first of which is the intent to violate the U.S. Constitution. After
all, as a matter of law, a person cannot be disqualified for serving in
office simply because they hold religious beliefs.
There
are several legal provisions in the U.S. Code that outline when courts
will not consider First Amendment protected conduct and beliefs when
interpreting laws. Among these laws include the First Amendment Defense
Act, the Freedom of Information Act, the Religious Testimony Clause of
the Religious Clauses clause, and the Establishment Clause of the
Constitution. There is no question that these provisions were intended
to prevent the court from considering a particular religion's views or
opinions when it comes to issues of public policy.
Religious
beliefs are not protected by the law, so if members of a religious
denomination hold an unpopular view of certain social issues, they
cannot be asked to refrain from speaking their minds or expressing their
opinions publicly. Under these laws, it is perfectly acceptable for a
member of Congress or a U.S. Senator to say they disagree with a policy
of the President. president, and also speak their mind freely about
their position without fear of being reprimanded or punished in some
fashion.
However, what is troubling about these
statements by President Trump and members of his administration is their
intent to use the U.S. Government to promote a particular religion over
another. If, for example, the Trump administration continues to push a
program that allows only Christians to apply for a federal job, it could
have an adverse affect on the non-religious members of the government.
The
law is designed to keep the government from endorsing any religion
above another, and it was designed to protect religious organizations
from having their beliefs or practices forced upon them. By ignoring the
law, this would violate the separation of church and state, which
ensures freedom of religion.
There are also many
questions surrounding the statements made by President Trump and his top
appointees about the U.S. Navy Academy. One of the most significant of
these is the statement made by Vice President Mike Pence when he was
asked about the comments President Trump made regarding a United States
Naval Academy graduate who said that she wished to become a Muslim
during her senior year. The Vice President's comment seemed to suggest
that the cadet's decision was unwise, and the administration has since
attempted to distance themselves from it.
It is important
to note that the statement was made in front of a live audience, and
President Trump has not taken back his statement, nor has Vice President
Trump or any of the other members of his administration. The White
House of Representatives is still attempting to argue that the statement
does not constitute a violation of the Hatch Act, despite the fact that
the vice president made the same comments about members of the House
chamber during the confirmation hearings of Elaine Chao.
There
are many other examples of statements that will likely be challenged by
the U.S. Military branch regarding the law of the Hatch Act, and the
military will likely continue to challenge the Trump administration's
use of this law. For example, there are currently numerous lawsuits and
inquiries that have been filed against the Department of Defense for
their actions at the U.S. Military Academy concerning the conduct of its
Cadet Officers. Many of these lawsuits may end up on the merits.
0 Comments