How the Constitution supports Trump’s immigration stance

Dear editor,

It seems nobody understands how to defend President Trump or his immigration stance in regards to a temporary stay of Muslim immigration allowing a proper vetting system to be put in place.

Seems nobody refers to our Constitution for the real answers as to what is allowed regarding religion and immigration.

Article VI, in the last paragraph and last sentence, states, "but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”

What this states is no person can be denied a position within our elected government or otherwise due to their religion. The "public trust" is our other jobs such as the military, police, firefighters, etc., to also not be denied these positions due to their religion.

So, our Constitution's reference to "no religious test" refers to government-type jobs only. Nowhere else in the original body of our Constitution is religion mentioned, except what I quoted. So, a religious test, or any type of test in regard to immigration, is constitutional in regards to the safety of American citizens.

This is especially so when the religion in question calls for the deaths of anyone who is not a member of the Islam faith (and who) practices the penalties of Sharia Law in a country such as ours, (which) promotes freedom of religion within its own borders.

By not vetting these Islam refugees, it creates an oxymoron within our own government and the written law within the words of our Constitution to protect "We the People" of the United States.

Now, if Democrats want to point at Amendment 1, where it states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" this only applies to religions within our borders that abide by our laws.

If our Constitution applies to all countries around the world, then so does the entirety of our Constitution, and we can now send out tax statements to any non-citizen of the U.S. for unpaid back taxes and pay down our debt using their money.

If Democrats actually thought they could get away with this, the IRS would have already sent out statements at the pleasure of the more spending, entitlement-pandering Democrats.

Now, our own income tax law, which includes churches, is actually unconstitutional because it could not contain the church in the first place because "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion.”

The IRS's exemption of the church only attempts to skirt Amendment 1, at best. Lyndon Johnson's law, of not allowing churches to actively endorse a presidential candidate, was another unconstitutional law, violating again the same amendment.

If a union of labor can constitutionally back a presidential candidate, then a union of faith has the same rights, especially when Amendment 1 states there is not a damn thing a political-left government can do about it because they cannot pass any laws regarding the church!

So I see two laws passed, and two violations of our Constitution in doing so, and a "one supreme" court that reads anything but our Constitution! 

STEVEN KING

Milton

This article originally appeared on Santa Rosa Press Gazette: How the Constitution supports Trump’s immigration stance