There is a way to counteract illegal actions by the President: impeach and convict him. Of course, that's a slow, tortuous process, and unlikely to succeed from a Congress controlled by the President's party.
Thanks for the clarity on the legal issues that can stymie the efforts of laypersons who grapple with them. This could be a non-issue if Congress quit bending over for every whim of an unthoughtful president and asserted its responsibility.
Begs the question: Since by the time this gets to court on the "merits" the ballroom will be built, why bring a case on the merits? Same as firing so many people while the legality of the firings drags through the courts. Point being: this is their strategy, while we argue over legal technicalities -- they're already doing "the thing" whatever it is. And hey, we can't "untear-down" the East Wing. Or, I'm betting, tear down the new "ballroom." Kinda heartbreaking.
I guess the problem is that historic structures are old, so not as new and potentially efficient at new buildings. So, if someone does not have an appreciation of history, what good are historic structures? If there are no limits on what a president can do with respect to historic structures, or at least the White House, then we should be glad he did not tear the whole thing down and build a new Trump branded one. And, we should also be glad Congress did not tear the Capital down and build a new one.
To equate a swimming pool, tennis pavilion, bowling alley (Nixon,) is false equivalence. As you said most major additions received Congressional approval
Trump's experience is limited and typically very ego driven and gregarious. Look at the reflecting pool
This monstrosity is over the top. There is much relevance to L'enfant
Trump lied about the secure space.
The two statutes you cited, and correctly pointed out are not relevant.
I am not aware Trump told anyone outside his administration
I totally agree with standing but this court always kicks the real issue down the road
Long ago I read Should Trees Have Standing by Christopher Stone. The Supreme Court has come up with a workable but imperfect standard in line with the Constitutional requirement of "case or controversy."
The need for a larger indoor space to White House functions has been known for a long time. I attended an event during W's administration when a dinner had to be moved indoors at the last minute because of inclement weather. Yes, it might be #8,379 on anyone's list but that it should have made it easier to address in a bipartisan manner by a properly functioning Congress considerate of the needs of any President to have a secure space of beauty befitting the stature of our country to host large functions.
How about a manufacturer and/or vendor of White House based merchandise? All the post cards, models, puzzles, clothing, tourist items, etc., etc., etc., would be out of date. They would stand to lose a lot of money in useless inventory, or would need to completely redesign their manufacturing to show the current image of the White House.
Important people who's job (in part) is to impress other important people usually do so (in part) through grand spaces. This has been the case for thousands of years.
During the first impeachment, my overall position toward Trump’s attempt to manipulate the 2020 Democratic primary was that his purpose and its worth hardly mattered if he was using improper methods to advance it.
Not only would I make the same argument here; I would also suggest that Trump might have blunted the opposition to it simply by stating the case, as well as pursuing it through the established channels. It is not as if he never offered a rationale for the ballroom, but he let it be portrayed as a monument to himself. That made it practically indistinguishable from all the other proposed monuments to himself, from Mount Rushmore to a crater on the moon, all of which speak first and foremost to his personal pride, rather than any articulable public need or concrete accomplishment beyond the 2016 and 2024 elections.
Great essay--again. This is really helpful. As much as this kind of action concerns me, I have to agree with commenter Thomas Morton. It's kind of too late to stop the construction. Unless a lawsuit succeeds and could somehow force the president to restore the original structure (which, based on your analysis, sounds like would be near impossible), we might as well let the construction continue.
From a practical standpoint, the East Wing has been torn down and is currently being redesigned and reconstructed. Can’t just leave it a quarter-half finished!
There is a way to counteract illegal actions by the President: impeach and convict him. Of course, that's a slow, tortuous process, and unlikely to succeed from a Congress controlled by the President's party.
If the Democrats in Congress have no “standing “ it appears to me that there is little that can be done to stop Trump’s power grab away from congress.
Thanks for the clarity on the legal issues that can stymie the efforts of laypersons who grapple with them. This could be a non-issue if Congress quit bending over for every whim of an unthoughtful president and asserted its responsibility.
America is dead. Kleptocrica won.
Begs the question: Since by the time this gets to court on the "merits" the ballroom will be built, why bring a case on the merits? Same as firing so many people while the legality of the firings drags through the courts. Point being: this is their strategy, while we argue over legal technicalities -- they're already doing "the thing" whatever it is. And hey, we can't "untear-down" the East Wing. Or, I'm betting, tear down the new "ballroom." Kinda heartbreaking.
Great essay. Standing is the issue here and I agree it's difficult to say Hoagland was somehow injured by the ballroom construction.
I guess the problem is that historic structures are old, so not as new and potentially efficient at new buildings. So, if someone does not have an appreciation of history, what good are historic structures? If there are no limits on what a president can do with respect to historic structures, or at least the White House, then we should be glad he did not tear the whole thing down and build a new Trump branded one. And, we should also be glad Congress did not tear the Capital down and build a new one.
Nice analysis, Gabe. Have you considered law school?
I like your analysis but disagree with most of it
To equate a swimming pool, tennis pavilion, bowling alley (Nixon,) is false equivalence. As you said most major additions received Congressional approval
Trump's experience is limited and typically very ego driven and gregarious. Look at the reflecting pool
This monstrosity is over the top. There is much relevance to L'enfant
Trump lied about the secure space.
The two statutes you cited, and correctly pointed out are not relevant.
I am not aware Trump told anyone outside his administration
I totally agree with standing but this court always kicks the real issue down the road
That is enough for now
Long ago I read Should Trees Have Standing by Christopher Stone. The Supreme Court has come up with a workable but imperfect standard in line with the Constitutional requirement of "case or controversy."
The need for a larger indoor space to White House functions has been known for a long time. I attended an event during W's administration when a dinner had to be moved indoors at the last minute because of inclement weather. Yes, it might be #8,379 on anyone's list but that it should have made it easier to address in a bipartisan manner by a properly functioning Congress considerate of the needs of any President to have a secure space of beauty befitting the stature of our country to host large functions.
How about a manufacturer and/or vendor of White House based merchandise? All the post cards, models, puzzles, clothing, tourist items, etc., etc., etc., would be out of date. They would stand to lose a lot of money in useless inventory, or would need to completely redesign their manufacturing to show the current image of the White House.
Would they have standing?
Great piece Gabe!
Important people who's job (in part) is to impress other important people usually do so (in part) through grand spaces. This has been the case for thousands of years.
Who really cares? Why waste the energy on such an insignificant topic?
During the first impeachment, my overall position toward Trump’s attempt to manipulate the 2020 Democratic primary was that his purpose and its worth hardly mattered if he was using improper methods to advance it.
Not only would I make the same argument here; I would also suggest that Trump might have blunted the opposition to it simply by stating the case, as well as pursuing it through the established channels. It is not as if he never offered a rationale for the ballroom, but he let it be portrayed as a monument to himself. That made it practically indistinguishable from all the other proposed monuments to himself, from Mount Rushmore to a crater on the moon, all of which speak first and foremost to his personal pride, rather than any articulable public need or concrete accomplishment beyond the 2016 and 2024 elections.
Great essay--again. This is really helpful. As much as this kind of action concerns me, I have to agree with commenter Thomas Morton. It's kind of too late to stop the construction. Unless a lawsuit succeeds and could somehow force the president to restore the original structure (which, based on your analysis, sounds like would be near impossible), we might as well let the construction continue.
From a practical standpoint, the East Wing has been torn down and is currently being redesigned and reconstructed. Can’t just leave it a quarter-half finished!