Vacuums and Technicalities

Please read carefully. There will be a quiz.

As Trump took office a second time, there was a rough consensus that a bigger White House ballroom would be a really cool thing to have. The existing indoor space for formal state dinners was way too small. The ad hoc solution of holding larger formal dinners in a giant tent (with portapotties nearby) was not really working.

There was no consensus about a proper solution. Without a consensus, Congress would not appropriate the money needed to build anything.

Trump, being Trump, started asking all his rich friends to contribute to a fund dedicated to building a new ballroom. Maybe the rich friends contributed to gain favor with Trump, or maybe they contributed solely to do something nice for the country on its 250th birthday. Anyhow, sufficient millions were raised.

Nonetheless, we were still without a consensus over the size, location, or design of the ballroom. Trump being Trump, he hired an architect and gave him general directions regarding size, location, and design. Thus began a normal give and take between architect and client. I assume the architect received input from many others in addition to Trump. After a few months, a design was revealed. Predictably, it garnered both praise and derision. No consensus.

Trump being Trump, he unilaterally gave the order to begin demolition of the old (hallowed?) East Wing as the first step of construction.

Predating all of this, the military had decided the White House Situation Room was also too small and outdated. If there was going to be a new construction project, they wanted in. So, the final plans included a new, expanded Situation Complex buried under the new ballroom. For this, there was consensus. For this, Congress appropriated the money.

Now, many years ago, as a matter of general principle, Congress passed a law saying you can’t erect a new building on federal land without permission from Congress. But, they also had long ago given presidents permission to alter and remodel the White House. And, technically, the new ballroom will be connected to the existing White House by a very long, narrow hallway partially underground. It will actually look like a wholly separate building, a huge separate building. The law saying you can’t build is not a criminal statute. No one is getting arrested.

Congress could, of course, solve all problems by approving the ballroom—or by explicitly forbidding the ballroom. Congress has done neither.

Erecting an unauthorized structure on government land does not create a victim of any kind. Congress could call itself the victim and authorize a lawsuit, but it hasn’t. So, a self-anointed expert in historical D.C. architecture declared herself a victim and sued to stop construction. Her “harm” was having to walk the neighborhood and be visually assaulted by a big ugly building.

Such a victim is needed because any Tom, Dick, or Harry can not sue the government because the government is breaking the law. Only a person “harmed” can sue. The self-anointed expert says she should win the lawsuit because Congress did not authorize the ballroom. That the ballroom is big and ugly is only relevant to give the expert “standing” to bring the lawsuit.

Quiz: Who is most at fault here?
(a) Trump for building a wonderful, badly needed, addition to Washington D.C. that will be treasured for generations without spending taxpayer money (albeit without Congressional approval and while unilaterally changing treasured historical landmarks forever without seeking consensus).
(b) Some Trump-deranged crazy lady who is claiming she is victimized by having to see a building she doesn’t like.
(c) The Federal judge who issued an order stopping construction?
(d) The Federal appellate justices who first upheld the trial judge, then changed their minds and reversed, then changed their minds again and upheld? (e) The four Supreme Court justices (Chief Justice Roberts and the three progressive justices) who voted to uphold the trial judge? Or,
(f) the five justices who decided the self-anointed expert has no standing and therefore let construction continue?

Answer: None of the above. The guilty party here is Congress for failing to do its job. If Congress would do its job, there would be no vacuum for presidents to fill, and there would be no need for courts and lawyers to argue about legal technicalities used by presidents to justify their filling of the vacuum, and legal technicalities used by citizens trying to stop presidents from filling the vacuum.

G-Pub