I'm reading National Trust for Historic Preservation in the United States v. National Park Service, the new decision from the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
And here's WaPo's report: "Trump says he’ll bring ballroom fight to Supreme Court after lower court halts work/An appeals court ruled earlier Friday that construction must stop until Congress authorizes the project. The ballroom is among the president’s top priorities for this term" (gift link).
Trump's reaction, at Truth Social: "Two Judges, one appointed by Barack Hussein Obama, the other by Sleepy Joe Biden, said in a ruling on the desperately needed SECURE Ballroom/Military Complex, including a major DronePort on the roof, that 'Each President is a temporary tenant…of the White House.' We are not tenants, who pay rent and do all other things that a tenant must do, we are PRESIDENTS, elected by the people of the United States of America, and have many rights, including the right to fix, renovate, secure, protect, and beautify the White House grounds, which has been built and rebuilt, renovated and rerenovated, repaired and, simply, MADE BETTER, many times since 1792, and never needing the permission of Congress, or anyone else, to do so. This decision, made after much of the work has been done and paid for, is a National Security Threat at the highest level. It is also a National Disgrace. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN! President DONALD J. TRUMP"
Posts
96 comments:
Kabuki theater.
The 'ballroom' was a cover story for plausible deniability about the underground security complex. The cover story leveraged Trump's flashy image and entertainment style. Consider how he was previously allowed to continue work underground.
This plan could never have been initiated or ready to go without years and years of insider detailed engineering plans already in place. The old East Wing's footprint was far too small to support a hardened bunker with living quarters, a hospital, a food storehouse, an electronic command center, an armory, and escape/transit links out.
The 'ballroom' is a disposable shield that sits on top of and protects the bunker. A different administration (such as Biden) might have called it an "International Diplomatic Center" or "Global Peace and Unity Pavilion" or some such. Cover stories must match the President's believable image.
This is the stupididest anti-Trump lawfare yet. It will not stop construction. It will simply waste time and money needlessly.
…I’m no constitutional scholar but that decision reads like Hawaiian judge propaganda. Where some see a get Trump battle I see a battle over the legitimacy of politicized courts….
Trump is doing this all wrong. It's supposed to have a 10-year completion date, run way over its bloated budget, be chronically behind schedule, and produce an inferior product that must be torn down and redone. Trump is cutting a lot of people out of their graft. Just look at the procurement process for defense contractors for reference. That's how things are supposed to be handled in DC.
I don't have time to read the entire decision. Does it order the full restoration of the East Wing status quo ante ?
The use of the word "bulldozed" is purposefully inflammatory.
So it turns out the people's house is also the crown jewel which is good to know.
The military/bunker is ok to do without Congressional authorization, but the ballroom that sits on top of it is not because the above ground portion changes the historical park grounds too much, or something. The new wing adds too much square footage to the White House, and makes it closer in size to the Capital building. Congress must weigh in to make sure the smaller size difference doesn’t diminish their stature too too much.
In the end, it’s jealousy that drives these lawsuits. Trump’s legacy will be larger than any other president’s legacy. It’s dispiriting knowing everywhere we look we’ll see a Trump thingamajig. Ballroom, arch, airport, Air Force 1… when will it, and he, just stop?
Reversed.
One thing has been made clear, the federal judiciary is hopelessly political.
Maybe Congress should simply add a $1.00 line item for the ballroom in this pending reconciliation bill.
Hinderaker over at PowerLine sums it up well:
“The majority opinion goes on just about forever, 101 pages, but doesn’t seem particularly persuasive. The threshold issue is standing. The plaintiff in the case is the National Trust for Historic Preservation, but that organization has nothing to do with the White House grounds, which are under the jurisdiction of the National Park Service. The Trust claims to have standing to sue because it has a member who occasionally walks past the White House and thinks she will consider the new ballroom to be aesthetically unpleasant. This strikes me as just about the weakest possible reed on which to hang a standing claim.”
Manger, no it “allows” the underground structure but disallows the ballroom. This stupid ruling will not stand. Trump’s Truth screed is a pretty good take on things.
Mike (MJB Wolf) has nailed it. The National Trust lacks standing, which means the case should be dismissed. Also we have the absurd result that the demolished above ground building can’t be replaced but an underground bunker can be built. This absurd result might get the attention needed to cause a reversal.
Credit to the experienced lawyer, John Hinderaker. I just quoted the nut ‘graph.
“or obtaining Congress’s permission”
…the minor disturbance in the decision: when corrupt judges are spitballing they are highly confident congress will back stop their desired outcome….
If a judge wants to beat you in a close case, it can be done. No way was there standing in this case. SCOTUS reverses on standing ASAP.
The majority opinion written by two Democrat judges is 101 pages. The first letter of the third word on every other page spells “President Trump is Hitler so everything he does is illegal.”
They just don’t want it done before Trump leaves office.
The Trust claims to have standing to sue because it has a member who occasionally walks past the White House and thinks she will consider the new ballroom to be aesthetically unpleasant.
Oof. This sounds like an 8 to 1 reversal to me.
Far-left Judges have prevented Trump from being POTUS. Once again, we have Democrat Judges rendering opinions based on their politics. Trump literally cannot change the White House grounds or ban someone from the White House press pool without a Leftwing Judge saying "No".
Something must be done. But nothing will be.
In the ruling these words: "simple humility". As opposed to say, complex humility.
This “People’s House” is socialist bullshit. The people are not allowed into the White House anymore than they are allowed to walk through the velvet ropes of the Capitol anytime they want.
Both the Constitution and subsequent statute give Congress the exclusive control over what gets built on government property. There really is not any wiggle room there.
The standing of the Plaintiffs will not matter come January. Speaker Jeffries will have standing and there is little doubt that he will put a stop to it.
I know the ballroom is needed but I am sick of Presidents (whether I’d be Obama, Biden, or Trump) acting outside the law.
Hopefully the end result will be a building that is less imperial and more republican but I imagine President AOC will convince the Congress to authorize the construction of something like the Boston City Hall.
"One thing has been made clear, the federal judiciary is hopelessly political."
I totally agree. The first thing I do on a political court decision is to look at who appointed the judges to get a better understanding of the case. I would advise all media to reveal this information at the top of their stories as it is a reflection of the media source itself and whether or not the media wants to cover up (as in smother) the story because the media is political.
Crown jewels - but No Kings.
I think the Progressives are looking for a California High Speed Rail solution.
"The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State."
That is it. The Property Clause. They are just making shit up.
What The Great And Powerful L'Enfant hath decreed (or suggested, or implied, or whatever We think he had in mind) shall not be altered. That is the rule and the law. So saith We The Judges.
There is no separation of powers in this government.
The Courts decided to give themselves the power to decide anything.
The entire Judicial Branch needs to be purged.
When the next Dem president (Gawd help us!) and his guests are huddled in tents on the lawn, it will of course be entirely the fault of Donald Trump that the ballroom was not completed in time.
“Maybe Congress should simply add a $1.00 line item for the ballroom in this pending reconciliation bill.”
The One Big Beautiful Bill Act was signed on July 4, 2025 and the ballroom project was announced 27 days later on July 31. So why wasn’t the $1.00 appropriation in the OBBBA?
The D.C. Circuit says this:
“We are aware of no instance in American history in which
a President unilaterally and using privately collected funds
demolished substantial portions of the White House that
Congress authorized to be built and American taxpayers paid
for.”
Square that with Trump’s claim:
“we are PRESIDENTS, elected by the people of the United States of America, and have many rights, including the right to fix, renovate, secure, protect, and beautify the White House grounds, which has been built and rebuilt, renovated and rerenovated, repaired and, simply, MADE BETTER, many times since 1792, and never needing the permission of Congress, or anyone else, to do so.”
The royal we is a giveaway as to why the ever-petulant Trump should lose the lawsuit. By the way, he’s not going to win on standing unless SCOTUS departs from what Justice Scalia wrote for the Court in Summers v. Earth Island Institute:
“While generalized harm to the forest or the environment will not alone support standing, if that harm in fact affects the recreational or even the mere esthetic interests of the plaintiff, that will suffice.”
I love that Scalia uses the American spelling rather than the British spelling of aesthetic.
So, apparently potentially Congress would have standing, not some elderly dog walker. This case should’ve been thrown out a long time ago.
“The One Big Beautiful Bill Act was signed on July 4, 2025 and the ballroom project was announced 27 days later on July 31. So why wasn’t the $1.00 appropriation in the OBBBA?“
I know, right? Who could’ve predicted such a nonsense case would be brought and decided this way?
All sorts of past presidents built that entire DC presidential complex. right?
**Both the Constitution and subsequent statute give Congress the exclusive control over what gets built on government property**
LOL so what? Congress is not suing. Some crazy Karen is and she has no standing. SCOTUS will hand the loser lefties their hat and the ball will go on. Most you can hope for AMDG is that your ugly stepsister somehow wrangles you an invite to the spectacular venue someday.
While we worry about a needed and secure modern ballroom
We have bigger problems.
Choose who describes it best, the retired lawyer who zeroed in on the critical standing issue (that lower courts have abused horribly in recent years) or the lunatic raving of Left Bank who throws up plenty of chaff but no relevant argument?
He’s a beautiful embodiment of Leftist orthodoxy consistent with his nickname in which irrelevant statements (too many really) are assembled in place of adult discussion.
The decision seems to be based on Congress having "authorized funding" for most of the major renovations - the rebuild following the War of 1812, the gutting and reconstruction under Truman, etc., which would make sense, as only Congress can appropriate funds.
But from what I can tell, there has not been a time where Congress took on architectural oversight. Both the East and West Wing plans were not specifically authorized by Congress. and in particular the East Wing was massively upgraded by Roosevelt during WWII to construct the existing underground bunker (with the above-ground construction effectively providing cover to keep the bunker construction secret) and was funded through generic military appropriations.
Here, the money for the underground work is also coming from military funding, and the remainder is being paid for with private funds - no spending authorization needed.
The Brits burned it down with no permission from Congress or the Park Service or leftist agitprop “journalists.”
Trump should commission Obama Library Architect to design cement concrete encasement for Ball Room
Achilles- Separation of power? How does the existing law requiring Congress approval for major construction projects at the White House fit into your theory?
**How does the existing law requiring Congress approval for major construction projects at the White House fit into your theory?**
Enough! What is the exact text of this imaginary law on which you rely?
Here you go Mike. Seems pretty clear to me:
In 1912, Congress placed a statutory exclamation point on
its exclusive powers by providing that “there shall not be
erected on any reservation, park, or public grounds[] of the
United States within the District of Columbia, any building or
structure without express authority of Congress.” Act of Aug.
24, 1912, ch. 355, 37 Stat. 417, 444. More than a hundred years
later, that prohibition remains in effect: “A building or
structure shall not be erected on any reservation, park, or public
grounds of the Federal Government in the District of Columbia
without express authority of Congress.” 40 U.S.C. § 8106.
Treeless, I believe the Trump administration's position is that there is not a "new" building being "erected," but instead simple repair and renovation of an existing structure.
Tommy. I believe you are right. Is that also your view? That the enormous hole in the ground will not be filled by a new building?
Thank you. So are these renovations being done with Congressional approval?
Note that still doesn’t make the litigants who lack standing likely to prevail. The “is Trump doing it the right way IMO” question is irrelevant to the subject of this WaPo article.
Mike - so you agree that the law requires Congress approval for the ballroom? Re standing, maybe nobody has standing to challenge Trump. He can violate the law with impunity. Perhaps But that doesn’t change the fact that he is violating the law.
I’d give the judges their way and cease all construction on site. A hole in the ground with a rusting superstructure seems appropriate for the federal government and Washington DC.
So, we won't have a gay old time, man and woman, couples in dance? That's so cisphobic.
So proceed on the bunker. The bunker "cap" can be the solid surface desired for guests, especially those wearing high heels.
Leave the rest as is. I might even put up a poster saying we apologize for the mess, but no restoration work can proceed based on a Court ruling by Judges X and Y. Maybe add their photos.
The Capitol is the People and our [unPlanned] Posterity's House. It is the site of the Pelosi-rrection with elements of Whitmer-conspiracy in witch hunts. Judicial warlock trials in the district of corruption. Baby Lives Matter (BLM).
The Federal Budget is the people's budget. Congress exercises plenary control over the budget.
How we doing on that?
They don't have a case.
But in DC that doesn't matter.
Tireless, I haven't researched the application of the statute, so I can't say what a neutral court might say. I could make the argument either way. Renovation could fairly include taking down existing structures, particularly when a major part of what is being renovated is a hardened bunker under the structure. On the other han, it may not extend to doubling or tripling the size of the previous structure.
I would say thati if this was as clear cut as a single statute and Constitutional provision, it would not need 100+ pages to get there.
That Pierre L’Enfant Is better than Donald Trump.is an important factor in determining the law that congress, it the president, controls the building. That’s the kind of logic a humble court of appeals teaches us.
Meant "Treeless." Stupid autocorrect.
Like most things Trump touches there is a remarkable vulgarity that’s unique to his style. As for emulating Rome, European and Russian imperial palaces, Trump has no concept of proportion or nuance, resulting in white stucco gilded concrete or hideous proportion, often lacking context to its surroundings. Everything he builds is like the strip in Las Vegas.
If you’re looking for historical precedent, Jimmy Carter humiliated himself and the nation in an Iranian quagmire, but was able to salvage a bit of self-respect by exerting meticulous control over the White House tennis courts. So it’s utterly outrageous some judge would deny Donald Trump the same comfort with his White House ballroom.
What a crock of Crapola, THEY GAVE THE GUY IMMUNITY ,in things of presidential business. What are they gonna do about it? trump has neutered the feckless Congress and who is going to stop him. Maybe should have thought about that before hand. He'll claim country security,important business of the president and all other things and dare the feckless Congress and SCOTUS to do something about it. Basic rules are dead and the catch is the next guy up will have same stipulations and just like the Germans did with Hitler after he was gone was remove everything he did to the country, its the way it is now. When you create the frankenstein you are held to the monsters whims, Waste of time with the stop and starts in the feckless courts,this fella is gonna do what he wants there is no stopping him AND THEY GAVE IT TO HIM Reap the harvest. Nothing but lame culture issues,the great JOE McCarthy scare when you got nothing else but grift, crap policies and family enrichment. Just build the thing and the next guy can tear it down. SKYNET is here and the King says it is what I say it is. On hold bullcrap the guy is immune! YOU DID IT.
Indefinite Democratic incursions.
Before the election, MAGA voters said their top priorities were lowering prices and releasing the Epstein files. Now the same MAGA supporters say their top priorities are building a gold ballroom for the White House and putting tariffs on Ford and GM. Weird how their “all pedophiles should be in prison” mantra went away as soon as their cult leader was implicated.
Trump really needs more people up his ass, it’s that important.
All this is fine. Democrats and their attorneys are spending time and money on stupid things thinking it is wining and not focusing on elections.
The rot runs deep and it’s difficult for these folks in their robes and slippers to see it. They talk a good game, though.
Dance together. Have a gay time together. An outhouse on the lawn in transition to become a big, beautiful ballroom and conference center.
Back in the day one response to chickenshit judicial decisions was to let the consequence lay at the judges’ feet. For example, “This is a stupid, anti-Constitutional decision that violates separation of powers. However, we have spent enough money and SCOTUS’s time on this Democrat sponsored lawfare. We will continue the below grade construction. If Congress chooses to sponsor and fund the ballroom, we will finish. If not, the eyesore of the unfinished construction site will remain as a monument to the pettiness of Democrat judges. DJT, POTUS.”
Gold is very expensive nowadays, but with all the money he is making he can afford to cover the whole place with it.
“The ballroom is among the president’s top priorities for this term"
Well…that might explain a few things.
Keep the anxiety dialed to 11 over meaningless trifles.
Are you ready, Steve? (Uh-huh)
Andy? (Yeah)
Mick? (Okay)
Alright, fellas, well, let's go
Oh, yeah, it was like lightning
Everybody was frightening
And the music was soothing
And they all started grooving
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah
And the man at the back said, "Everyone, attack"
And it turned into a ballroom blitz
And the girl in the corner said, "Boy, I wanna warn ya
It'll turn into a ballroom blitz
"In 1912, Congress placed a statutory exclamation point on
its exclusive powers by providing that “there shall not be
erected on any reservation, park, or public grounds[] of the
United States within the District of Columbia, any building or
structure without express authority of Congress.” Act of Aug.
24, 1912, ch. 355, 37 Stat. 417, 444. More than a hundred years
later, that prohibition remains in effect: “A building or
structure shall not be erected on any reservation, park, or public
grounds of the Federal Government in the District of Columbia
without express authority of Congress.” 40 U.S.C. § 8106.
I am frankly puzzled. Why then, did it take the court 101 pages to come up with this decision? It appears that there have been a number of bills proposed both pro and con--none of them have passed. Does that mean that the courts--rather than the president--get to decide? Or does it mean that (contrary to well-established practice and precedent) nothing ever gets done?
Does congressional funding of the structure below the ballroom imply congressional authorization to construct the ballroom? Were those plans included somewhere in the funding bill? (presumably not--that would seem to be a slam dunk if they were, although with lefty DC Circuit judges, one never knows).
If the Congress has to vote, Trump has the size of the thing to bargain with. We can design a smaller ballroom in exchange for the votes to pass.
Trump can finish the building but
Certificate of Occupancy may be delayed till President D
Breezy nailed it in 1. The new ballroom will be built (the old one IIRC has been demolished) but every effort will be expended to make sure it isn't TRUMP's ballroom.
Howard thinks he’s the passionate one! CC, JSM
AI will parse its way through all existing federal and state laws and conclude that everything is legal -- and also illegal.
"and have many rights, including the right to fix, renovate, secure, protect, and beautify the White House grounds, which has been built and rebuilt, renovated and rerenovated, repaired and, simply, MADE BETTER, many times since 1792, and never needing the permission of Congress, or anyone else, to do so."
Presidents don't have rights, they have powers. And no Constitutional clause or statue empowers the President to rebuild or renovate the White House on their own say-so.
And yes, past Presidents have overstepped their powers and made major changes to the White House without Congressional approval. That doesn't empower Pres. Trump to do the same. This is not the UK, we have a written Constitution and it must be enforced, or we become...the UK.
Trump is supposed to be such a magnificent persuader. How hard can it be to persuade majorities in the House and Senate to approve his ballroom plans? If Democrats are that intransigent, then make it a campaign issue and take it to the American people, and get your own people elected. Yes it's hard, it's supposed to be hard.
...no Constitutional clause or statute*...
“Like most things Trump touches there is a remarkable vulgarity that’s unique to his style. As for emulating Rome, European and Russian imperial palaces, Trump has no concept of proportion or nuance, resulting in white stucco gilded concrete or hideous proportion, often lacking context to its surroundings. Everything he builds is like the strip in Las Vegas.”
Your aesthetics. Not mine. We are currently living in his hotel, right by the strip, in Las Vegas. 5th tallest building in town, far more beautiful tan most of the strip. 65 stories of his trademarked gold and white, with the gold predominating. It reverses indoors, with the white predominating. In my mind, one of the most beautiful tall buildings in town. Everything else in town is overdone. Trump International is not. Its lines are uncomplicated. Very little of the busy Neo-whatever styles you see across town. Not surprisingly, the plans for the WH ballroom and Presidential library look similar.
You can get an idea of what professional architects would do there, if given full rein, with Obama’s library. Trump has a good eye for this sort of thing. His wife’s, of course, has an impeccable one. I suspect that she is the one who cleaned up the clutter he used to build - its a major change from his Taj Mahal we visited in ;Atlantic City So long ago.
That this doesn't meet with the architectural sensibilities of our betters has no bearing here. Their taste is so obviously horrid, that the American people have no interest in it. For much, of MAGA, this is much superior. I expect that it will weather the ages far better than these elites could have designed.
“Reversed”
Agreed. On Standing grounds. That is probably the most egregious part of the decision. One woman believing that she will be appalled or scandalized by the ballroom if and when she walks by the WH maybe once a month. It’s speculative. And why should her aesthetics overrule those of the popularly elected President?
This is the same sort of ridiculous Standing decision that activist judges have been using to try to hamstring and destroy Trump. Some of the same judges who shutdown so many of the challenges to the 2020 election on Standing grounds.
This has become so egregious that I expect the Republicans majority to use this case to drive another stake through these excessively permissive Standing decisions by liberal activist lower court decisions.
Why Standing? Because it would be quick and dirty. On substantive grounds, the case is very messy. Congress has the power of the purse. But the money doesn’t come from the public purse. It would be donated. And the NPS has long accepted earmarked private donations for special purposes. And interestingly, there is a statute that classifies them as “appropriated”.
And then we get into Separation of Powers. The President is both head of state and head of government. Both sides of this are centered around the President’s home, the WH. It is the eternal, the had, of the Executive branch of our government. The Supreme Court and Congress don’t request or need the approval of the other two branches. Why the Executive branch?
Hence, my suggestion that Reversing on Standing would be the quick and dirty minimalist, way to slap down these left wing judges.
The “one woman might be offended by the aesthetics” argument is a rather creative way to avoid the actual issue. Standing isn’t a referendum on whether someone finds Trump’s ballroom ugly; it’s about whether a plaintiff has a legally cognizable injury. And the ruling wasn’t “her aesthetics overrule the President.” It was that the President doesn’t own the White House simply because he was elected president. Being elected president gives you the keys to the White House; apparently it doesn’t give you the deed.
The real question is whether a president can demolish part of a federally owned historic building and construct a 90,000-square-foot replacement without Congress. The court said no. That’s separation of powers, not judicial aesthetic review.
And invoking the 2020 standing cases as proof of “liberal activist judges” is particularly rich. Standing is a constitutional doctrine, not a partisan one, and the original ballroom injunction came from a judge appointed by George W. Bush.
Like so many gingers before him, Howard suffers from cold sores and/or fever blisters. And being a Masshole, he runs with the whooahs…
This will get built and Democrat presidents will use it like no tomorrow.
"That this doesn't meet with the architectural sensibilities of our betters..."
The architectural sensibilities of our betters is nothing more than "If Trump is for it, I'm against it." Simple as that.
Just ignore the ruling. No one takes the DC federal judges seriously.
“The “one woman might be offended by the aesthetics” argument is a rather creative way to avoid the actual issue. Standing isn’t a referendum on whether someone finds Trump’s ballroom ugly; it’s about whether a plaintiff has a legally cognizable injury. And the ruling wasn’t “her aesthetics overrule the President.” It was that the President doesn’t own the White House simply because he was elected president. Being elected president gives you the keys to the White House; apparently it doesn’t give you the deed.”
What was her cognizable injury? That she might be offended by the aesthetics of the new ballroom?
“The real question is whether a president can demolish part of a federally owned historic building and construct a 90,000-square-foot replacement without Congress. The court said no. That’s separation of powers, not judicial aesthetic review.”
The old East Wing is gone. As well as the bunker under it. CinC power, etc. The question that remains is what to do with the hole above the new bunker. And the question is who gets to decide? A TDS addled women who is self appointed to police WH aesthetics? Or the popularly elected President?
The issue about Separation of Powers is the claim in legislation, that it a control the WH, the seat of power of a co-equal anch of government.
“And invoking the 2020 standing cases as proof of “liberal activist judges” is particularly rich. Standing is a constitutional doctrine, not a partisan one,…”
Of course it is political, at least in the hands of activists liberal judges. Yes, it is a Constitutional doctrine. But it is flexible enough that I gives hose activist Jude’s enough room to do their political will. This case is a good example of manufacturing Standing out of thin air.
What are they gonna do, impeach him?
Democrats will destroy our Democratic values when they don't have the majority, in order to attain the majority. I remember when the Democrat party had morals, ethics, and integrity. No longer and not for quite some time now. Their official motto should be "by any means necessary" with a footnote too, "even if it means we destroy what we claim to cherish." No wonder they hate the Constitution, Free Enterprise, Individualism, Private Property rights, Freedom, and Liberty.
As Bruce eloquently explained, confirming the Hinderaker quote I posted, for purposes of discussing this lawsuit Congress’ alleged “authority” and the statutory language are irrelevant. This lawfare rests on the authority of one kooky Karen who imagines the finished building may offend her sense of architectural integrity.
So what?
Like the statute notrees cut & pasted: so what? The statute is not stopping the work. This frivolous poorly conceived lawsuit is the issue.
Did congress bring the case? If not, then by the decision’s own terms, it should fail for lack of standing.
I’m with you, Hombre.
For an attorney, it’s a creative theory of jurisprudence to treat standing as constitutional when convenient but “political” when applied by disfavored judges.
The plaintiff is not an “aesthetics cop” simply because her alleged injury concerns the White House’s appearance and historical character. Standing turns on whether she has a legally cognizable injury, not whether she was elected to oversee presidential design choices.
The separation-of-powers claim is also strained. The President is Commander in Chief, not Commander of the Constitution. Election to executive office does not displace Congress’s authority over appropriations, federal property, and the statutory limits on executive action.
One can dispute the standing analysis, lawyers do so routinely. But dismissing an adverse ruling as “manufactured out of thin air” because one disagrees with the claim is less legal reasoning than a political slogan with a law degree attached.
The design of the White House complex over the years has been based upon interbranch comity. I'd prefer not to see a showdown in which either Congress gets the right to choose the drapes, or the president gets to build the Taj Mahal.
Whatever happened to humility?
Humility is certainly preferable to a constitutional arms race over drapes and ballrooms. But comity cuts both ways.
The better question isn’t whether we prefer the new ballroom aesthetically. It’s whether the project complies with the applicable law and constitutional allocation of authority. If it does, “I don’t like what they’re building” is a rather thin substitute for a legal objection. Humility, after all, includes knowing the limits of one’s own authority.
Post a Comment
Please use the comments forum to respond to the post. Don't fight with each other. Be substantive... or interesting... or funny. Comments should go up immediately... unless you're commenting on a post older than 4 days. Then you have to wait for us to moderate you through. It's also possible to get shunted into spam by the machine. We try to keep an eye on that and release the miscaught good stuff. We do delete some comments, but not for viewpoint... for bad faith. Also: No italics, even briefly. Use asterisks for emphasis. And don't play with the format by changing fonts or using boldface or all caps. Never include more than one extra line break between paragraphs.