Donald Trump’s ‘Muslim ban’ is not unconstitutional, but it is up for debate

Please send your letters to letters@independent.co.uk

Trump’s ‘travel ban’ has faced opposition from the public as well as federal judge James Robart (Getty)

Trump swore an oath to uphold the United States Constitution. Yet one of his first acts as President has been called “unconstitutional” by several judges, and a leading Democrat says he “seems intent on causing a constitutional crisis”.

Should he not be impeached immediately for lying at his inauguration?

Richard Walker

West Malvern

Your editorial,(We are nervously confident Donald Trump cannot break the US Constitution, 4 February) claims that, “a Federal judge in Seattle ruled that parts of the President’s Executive Order on immigration were unconstitutional and inoperative”. Unfortunately, that’s not the case.

The judge issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) banning enforcement of several provisions of the Executive Order. A TRO maintains the status quo until a hearing can be held to determine whether a preliminary injunction is appropriate.

The judge did say that the Constitutional claim was “likely to succeed on the merits”. But at this stage, his decision is no more than a bump in the road for proponents of President Trump’s wicked and counterproductive policy.

Don Loeb, Vermont, USA

In defence of Donald Trump

It is good that Hillary Clinton had not made it to the White House. However, neither Joe Biden, nor Bernie Sanders would have been a better alternative. People yearn for change. They have known Hillary for 16 years, eight as a first lady and eight as a Secretary of State and a prominent senator.

It is true that President Trump in the words of Tony Schwartz has lied strategically. But seldom has there been a candid, a straightforward, a warrior and a president with an utter commitment to truth, able to state loudly that: “For too long, those in politics have reaped the rewards of government while people have borne the costs. Washington flourished, but the people did not share in its wealth. The establishment protected itself, but not the citizens of our country. Their victories have not been your victories. Their triumphs have not been your triumphs and while they celebrated in our nation's capital, there was little to celebrate for struggling families all across our land.”

Munjed Farid Al Qutob, London

Going Underground

Farming below the “City of London” (Inside London’s first underground farm, 4 February)? I don't so if it’s Clapham. How about “below the city of London” or better still “underneath London”.

David Phillips, London