Statue of Liberty (Photo: Firoz Ansari/Wikipedia Commons)
Last week, President Donald Trump's lawyers argued that he has the power to tear down whatever public buildings he wants, and few, if any, could sue over it. The judge asked whether that meant the president could bulldoze the Statue of Liberty. The Trump lawyer agreed.
The debate is over Trump's tearing down the East Wing of the White House. Legal analyst Harry Litman explained in a column for The New Republic that it began because Trump refused to obtain any legal or congressional authorization for his fantasy project, which he's pursued for decades.
"The administration simply got up one day last September and started taking a wrecking ball to the East Wing. It was only days until the structure was completely demolished. By the time the National Trust for Historic Preservation sued in December, the East Wing was gone, and large-scale excavation for the 90,000 square foot ballroom was well underway," recalled Litman.
He recalled the question from Judge Patricia Millett: “If this were the Statue of Liberty, the people whose ancestors — that was the first thing they saw coming to this country, but the government moved too fast — nothing can be done by them to challenge it?”
“I think that’s right, yes," replied Justice Department Lawyer Yaakov Roth.
Litman explained that Millett simply followed the administration's logic to its conclusion. Roth's argument was that the only entity that could stop Trump is Congress, which would be forced to pass a law blocking him, which Trump would then veto, and Congress would have to override it with a two-thirds majority. So, is it possible? Somewhat.
It's part of a "move fast and break things" strategy, Millett said, citing the often-used philosophy from Silicon Valley. It has been embraced by Trump since the start of his second administration.
It's the same philosophy used on Jan. 6 or even the $1.8 billion slush fund. It's reminiscent of the million-dollar settlements for Mike Flynn and Steve Bannon.
"Not that they acted lawfully, and not that they aren’t injuring the interests of the American people — but that nobody can do anything about it," wrote Litman. "In each of these examples, the administration follows the same two-step. First, neuter Congress: anything requiring legislation to stop faces a certain presidential veto, and the two-thirds override is a mathematical fantasy as long as enough Republican members remain terrified of Trump’s one remaining real weapon: the threat to come after them."
The second, he explained, is to do the same thing to the courts. That way, neither Congress nor the courts can step in. "The bulldozer rolls with no brakes," wrote Litman.
Trump has long claimed that Article III of the Constitution gives him the ultimate authority over all things.
"The constitutional design is that federal courts are not a substitute for legislative action," Litman made clear. "But the administration has taken its reliance on standing to a new low..."
He alleged that the administration is using it as a way to "bypass legal accountability" for things that the public finds abhorrent. It has left only the public as the means of expressing outrage so powerfully that it can't be ignored.
"The power of the Millett hypothetical is that it smokes out where the administration’s argument leads," Litman said. "Can the executive lay waste to the Statue of Liberty? Damn right, says Roth — and even if it’s a rank violation of the executive duty to take care, nobody can stop it because nobody has standing."
He closed by saying that there's something "un-American" about the Trump ballroom. "He is in effect trying to crown himself Emperor — cowing Congress and parrying court action with aggressive standing arguments pressed all the way to the Supreme Court." It shows a contempt for the United States while upholding his own image as supreme.
The only options available to stop it are public pressure, judicial accountability and voters at the polls, he reaffirmed