(Dobbs) “National security is not a blank check to proceed with otherwise unlawful activity.”Where will the Supreme Court draw the line? Or, will it draw one at all?
I hope the Supreme Court turns President Trump down. Yesterday, after a federal court of appeals told Trump that no law and no authority allowed him to tear down the East Wing of the White House last October to make way for his big ballroom, he vowed to appeal its decision. He vowed to take it to the Supreme Court. I hope they tell him, “Tearing down the East Wing the way you did it was wrong. You didn’t ask anybody, you just decided that because you’re president, you can do anything you like. You can’t. Especially when the White House isn’t your property, it’s the people’s property. That’s why it’s called The People’s House.” That’s pretty much what the appellate court said: “Each president is a temporary tenant, not the owner, of the White House and its Executive Residence.” As for the legality of it all, the court wrote that building a “massive ballroom on the White House grounds is for Congress to decide and is not a matter for executive self-help.” No doubt, at least part of the president’s argument to override the appellate court will be about the sheer impracticality of stopping it. He’ll say it’s a little late to put a hold on this project. After all, he’ll probably argue, some construction already is underway and there’s a big gaping hole waiting for more. It’s true. Stopping it at this point seems impractical. This is how it looked just four days ago when Trump led reporters on a tour…. But by and large, while the subterranean levels of Trump’s proposed ballroom already are being built, the former East Wing site is still a gaping hole. And the fact remains, Trump’s the one who dug it up. Again, he didn’t ask the appropriate commissions, let alone Congress. He just dug it up. So what the Supreme Court should tell Trump is, “You created this. It’s a problem of your own making. Don’t ask us to fix your mess.” If the Court doesn’t send that message, then the message it’s sending is, if you do something outside the rules and get away with it for long enough, you can get away with it forever, simply by arguing, “It’s too late to stop me.” That’s how Trump operates anyway. But the impracticality of stopping now won’t be his only argument. Originally of course, he sold it as a new ballroom, telling us that the 3,000 square foot East Room of the White House has been too small for some events, which forced bigger ones into tents on the South Lawn, which he felt was not in keeping with the dignity of the White House. No worries on that one though. Trump’s already putting his new granite helipad smack dab in the middle of the South Lawn, so the days of tent parties are gone. Basically what he told us was, a big new ballroom— projected at 22,000 square feet— was “badly needed.” That’s pretty much what he says about everything he badly wants. But polling shows that the ballroom, which contrary to his original promises now looks like it will be largely funded by us, hasn’t gone down well with the American people. So now he’s reverting to the other justification he has pushed: the security of the president. The blueprints show plans for a secure bunker six stories down in case of an attack, with bomb shelters, a medical facility, a section with secure communications, anti-aircraft weapons, and defense against bioweapons. In his post yesterday after the Court of Appeals ruled against him, the president wrote that its decision “severely jeopardizes the lives and welfare of the people who work, and will be working, at the White House — including all future Presidents of the United States, and their families, as well as the lives of all those visiting, such as Heads of State and other Dignitaries, and all Americans who wish to visit the historic, beautiful Executive Mansion.” He went on, “It is all tied together as one big, expensive, and very complex unit, which is vital for National Security and Military Operations of the United States of America!” Nary a mention of the ballroom. It’s interesting what Trump asked near the end: “Why didn’t they bring this case long prior to construction starting?” The fact is, the plaintiffs— the National Trust for Historic Preservation— didn’t wait until yesterday. They sued to stop construction in December. But it was four months before hearings finally started in federal court, where Trump advanced his argument about national security. To that, the federal judge in the case wrote in no uncertain terms, “National security is not a blank check to proceed with otherwise unlawful activity.” Anyway, the answer to Trump is simple: You left that gaping hole on Day One, Mr. President, and by Day Two, the East Wing was rubble. The sneaky way you did it, it was impossible to turn back the clock. Leave a comment This is all about presidential power. How much does a president have, when does he overstep it? The New York Times’s federal court reporters Zach Montague and Mattathias Schwartz wrote yesterday, “The dispute over the ballroom promises to make the abstract question of presidential power as tangible as bricks and mortar.” Where will the Supreme Court draw the line? Or, will it draw one at all? |