oldyeller said:
Phatbob said:
oldyeller said:
TheEternalOptimist said:
Im Gipper said:
Biden & Obama judges team up to stop the ballroom:
The whole apparatus of the left, including the judiciary, will not let Trump have a win on even something that would beneficial to potential Democrat presidents as well.
This is all about framing. Period.
That a ballroom would be desirable or beneficial isn't the point, the point is that there are limits on Presidental power, and his acting unilaterally on this is in excess of the power of the office he holds. The office of the President is powerful, but it isn't all powerful such that a President can ignore the Constitution or laws we have established.
The Court said as much in their ruling: "Whether or not a massive ballroom should be constructed is for Congress to decide and is not a matter for Executive self-help, … This holding has nothing at all to do with whether the proposed ballroom is desirable, or not, as a matter of policy. This ruling does not even necessarily mean that the Defendants may not ultimately construct the ballroom. … What it does mean is that the Defendants may not do so during the district court's expeditious litigation without securing Congress's authorization, as the Constitution and laws require."
It is understandable that we tend to frame this in partisan ways, given the hyper-polarization of our current politics, but in matters such as this it might be helpful to answer this simple question, "how might I feel if the other party had done this?" In other words, if Obama had decided to gild darn near every surface of the "People's House" in a gaudy way, pave over the Rose Garden, replace the Tennessee flagstone that had graced the West Wing colonnade with imported black granite at taxpayer expense, mock previous President's with disparaging photos and plaques along that walkway, and knocked down the East Wing and proposed a ballroom that dwarfs the rest of the White House without even consulting Congress, how would Republicans react? If we are honest, I think the answer would be very revealing.
If you really believed this, you could pretty easily point to the applicable laws requiring Congressional approval for White House construction then, yes?
How about the Property Clause of the Constitution for starters:
Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2:
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.
Then there's the the Sundry Civil Appropriation Act of August 24, 1912 which states that "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."
The WH isn't part of the District of Columbia. It is a part of President's Park. Which is part of the National Park System, not DC.
Just like Big Bend National Park is IN Texas, it is not actually part of Texas. It is federal land, owned by the National Park System.
You can turn off signatures, btw