Standing in the ballroom – Arkansas Times
The White House ballroom construction project waltzes on after the August 31 Supreme Court decision, despite the wording of the opinion: “Today, we do not pass upon the legality of the government’s East Wing project.”
Chief Justice Roberts’ dissent is even more frustrating: “The construction is likely unlawful.” This is what happens when a decision is made based not on the merits of the case, but on the standing of a party.
The Supreme Court essentially said that the National Trust for Historic Preservation did not have standing to challenge the East Wing project because the National Trust’s view that the project was wrong and distasteful was no different than the view of any other American who disagrees with the president’s construction decisions. I am not hearing much about other efforts to challenge the lawfulness of the East Wing project because of the standing issue.
Let me throw out a possibility. (WARNING: I finished law school 38 years ago and never practiced law for one minute and don’t remember learning anything about standing, anyway.)
The three constitutional requirements to be president are age 35, “natural born citizen,” and “fourteen years a resident.” But the decision to run for political office, particularly for president, is very personal. The last four presidents were married with minor children at the time they became president. A few days ago CNN interviewed Gavin Newsom. When asked about any decision to run for president: “I know what matters in life. I got four kids, it’s the only thing that matters to me.” From the report: “His wife and school-aged children, he said, would have to agree to a White House run. ‘If they’re not on board, that’s a non-starter.’”
This is not a piece for Gavin Newsom. My state Sen. Clarke Tucker and my state Rep. Andrew Collins would both be fine presidents. They currently meet the constitutional requirements, and here’s a case for standing for 2028 potential candidates who are married with minor children.
Potential presidential candidates married with minor children are harmed by the president’s unlawful East Wing construction project because there is inadequate information regarding the project and its impact on the ability of a family with young children to live there.
The first lady’s offices were destroyed. Without congressional review, input and authorization, it is not clear what the first lady’s offices will look like, nor that the president’s decisions are adequate.
The president has referred to the current White House as a “dump.” The president may intend that the new East Wing and ballroom become the new living quarters for the first family. Without congressional review, input and authorization, potential candidates will not know where the first family quarters will be.
There is much construction occurring underneath the proposed ballroom. It is being described as a military facility. But it is not clear what impact that security arrangement will have on the original White House and the current first family quarters. Without congressional review, input and authorization, potential candidates will not know how the security arrangements for the original White House are impacted by the construction.
The Supreme Court decision refers to “declarations” from multiple administration officials, including the directors of national intelligence, the CIA and the FBI, that the underground military facility construction can’t continue without the above-ground East Wing project construction continuing also. Without congressional review, input and authorization, potential presidential candidates do not know if the decisions reached were in fact in the best interests of security, or a product of presidential whim like the recent decision to return to steam to propel planes off the decks of aircraft carriers.
On September 24, 1957, President Dwight Eisenhower delivered a televised talk from the White House watched by approximately 100 million people. His topic: the Little Rock Central High school desegregation crisis. From the address:
“To make this talk I have come to the president’s office in the White House. I could have spoken from Rhode Island, where I have been staying recently, but I felt that, in speaking from the home of Lincoln, of Jackson, and of Wilson, my words would better convey both the sadness I feel in the action I was compelled today to take and the firmness with which I intend to pursue this course until the orders of the federal court at Little Rock can be executed without unlawful interference.”
Without congressional review, input and authorization, potential presidential candidates will not know if the residence and offices in which they will be living and working will become national symbols of unlawfulness.
I hear all you skeptical legal standing experts; but hey, when it comes to standing, sometimes the Hail Mary scores.
Last Saturday, I had a close-up photo of a turtle’s face, and today I have a photo of an egret in the rain we had a few days ago. And for those who don’t remember what I’m talking about: Rain is an accumulation of small drops of water from above.
And, yes, I know it is not a great pic, but this is what happens when I try and line up my 8-inch telescope with my phone.
Source link
