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.