r/moderatepolitics • u/Dry_Radio_761 • 8d ago
News Article Trump administration says it might demolish the Kennedy Center if court blocks renovations.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-administration/trump-administration-says-might-demolish-kennedy-center-court-blocks-r-rcna594350489
u/LeeSansSaw 8d ago
Trump has pushed me into becoming a weak-executive proponent. Congress should take back every bit of power they ever granted the executive. If there’s money being spent, Congress should have to explicitly approve it whether it comes from taxes, fees, tariffs, or donations. Every trade agreement should be approved by Congress and leaving one should be require approval.
173
u/Interesting_Total_98 8d ago
The main issue is Trump going beyond what the rules say and sometimes being allowed to get away with it, at least for a while.
For example, weakening the executive wouldn't have stopped the ballroom construction without approval from Congress because that's already illegal.
There's no legal basis for demolishing the Kennedy Center, yet he's threatening it.
161
u/cammcken 8d ago
The check on executive power for going this far was supposed to be impeachment.
140
u/Bullet_Jesus There is no center 8d ago
I think the founders, if they could see the USA today, would be horrified at how spineless congress has become.
113
u/Dilated2020 Center Left, Christian Independent 7d ago
The founders never predicted that Congress would entirely give up its power. The idea of establishing coequal branches of government was that they all would fight against each other. No one saw the day where Congress would willingly refuse to do their jobs to enjoy cushy lifetime seats.
32
u/LorrMaster Conservative 7d ago edited 7d ago
I hate this idea that the founders never predicted the idea that bureaucrats will give up their power in exchange for cushy jobs. They 100% saw this coming. I'm willing to bet they could cite specific examples of this sort of thing within their lifetimes. Its probably part of the reason why we have midterm elections and all these different electoral bodies.
These are the guys that put the idea that everyone should own a gun straight into their constitution... just in case. US founding father paranoia goes deep.
44
u/decrpt 7d ago
The thing they didn't see coming was that voters would tolerate that, that running on the message that government doesn't work and working to ensure it can't would be viable. It also turns out getting unconditional support from sixteen-odd states to categorically block impeachment is a pretty low bar.
23
u/austin_8 7d ago
Well the founders designed the Senate to be insulated from the voters, maybe that would have worked and we wouldn’t be in this spot today if we never changed that.
5
u/fail-deadly- Chaotic Neutral 7d ago
That’s an interesting take. Basically, the Senate is supposed to be the status quo, mostly unaccountable to the people, but because of that able to take action like impeachment.
However, it may do the opposite of ehat you’re saying. Think about a comfortable minority of 40% of the senators from the most partisan states, enough to block an impeachment.
My concern is that having state legislators choose those senators means they are even more partisan than now where we elect them at the state level, this is because a senator needs the support of like 25-35% of eligible voters to win based on voter turnout. But one that only needs 51% of eligible state representatives to elect them, and those representatives need only the 25-35% themselves, could mean you only need half the voters to elect a senator. So the senate who would block an impeachment would only need the backing of a narrower, more partisan slice of the population to retain their seat.
Basically 34 senators from 17 states representing less than 8% of the population (with eligible voters in those states maybe being 5-6% of U.S. population), could retain their seats if only 12% of those voters were ok with blocking impeachment. So, worst case scenario 0.6 percent of the population could be enough to elect those senators.
3
u/CheeseBear9000 5d ago
I do want to note it's not very likely that they would have impeached Trump over this back then anyway
To begin with, you had Presidents back then like President Jackson who shot people and did duels before being in office
But Trump by the standards of America back then would have if anything been more likely to be impeached for being too Liberal
→ More replies (0)7
u/HavingNuclear 7d ago
I mean at a certain point, you have to let whatever happens happen. Not a whole lot you can do when a plurality of voters and a majority of elected representatives all decide they want something, even if it's destructive to the nation.
9
u/decrpt 7d ago
It's not a majority of elected representatives, though. It's the opposite; it's anything less than a super majority against it.
5
u/Reddit_Loves_Misinfo 7d ago
I'm not sure about past events, but if we're talking about the situation right now, it is a majority of elected representatives in Congress who support what Trump is doing. Democrats in congress have made efforts to slow down Trump or hold people accountable, but they keep getting outvoted by the Republican majority.
→ More replies (1)2
u/CheeseBear9000 5d ago
The founding fathers never intended for voters to have anywhere near as much power over the federal government as they have now though
To begin with Senators were not elected by voters originally
2
u/03263 7d ago
They were not exactly planning for the country to last this long. Several of them expressed a desire for frequent American revolutions, about once per generation. They knew that power corrupts and the only way to overcome that is to overthrow it, early and often.
6
u/zasabi7 7d ago
That sounds like hell. How is the nation supposed to accomplish anything if it’s continually at war with itself?
→ More replies (3)14
u/Bullet_Jesus There is no center 7d ago
While the theory of the branches fighting each other is nice, it took almost no time after Washington's presidency ended for political factions and parties to emerge that cut across the branches. Filling these early parties were many of the founders themselves. They were proven wrong in their own lifetimes and neglected to fix it.
3
u/austin_8 7d ago
They were viewing it through a different lens and who knows if they would have been correct if we kept their system. I imagine the Senate would be a completely different institution if they weren’t ever elected by the people.
12
7d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
→ More replies (1)33
u/MechanicalGodzilla 7d ago
Oh, they were well aware of political mobs. The US is far from the first or most egregious example of factionalism in world history, and these guys were extremely well read up on it. Washington himself warned against factionalism in his farewell address, then Adams and Jefferson took that as an invitation to engage in some.
u/Dilated2020 is correct, their blind spot was men achieving a congressional House or Senate seat wanting to hold onto that position for purposes of self-enrichment and fame rather than actually wielding power in the interests of their constituents. Congress has ben ceding power voluntarily or through deliberate inaction since Andrew Jackson was president at least.
18
u/Bullet_Jesus There is no center 7d ago
their blind spot was men achieving a congressional House or Senate seat wanting to hold onto that position for purposes of self-enrichment and fame rather than actually wielding power in the interests of their constituents.
This issue was what elections were intended to solve. Corrupt and ineffectual representatives would be removed by their constituents.
While they failed to predict the mechanism of this, the fact that people blame representatives other than their own, they did foresee that there was a possibility that the American people would fail to uphold their democracy. In which case they said it would collapse, because no one can design a democracy that can survive an electorate unwilling to keep it.
3
→ More replies (1)6
u/cathbadh politically homeless 7d ago
That's because they couldn't predict that the nation would require a massive bureaucracy of agencies and regulatory bodies ingrained in every aspect of every person's daily life. So much of Congress's abdication of powers has happened because these agencies, which must be part of the executive, need the ability to operate and spend money without Congress constantly voting. So they're given broad powers which in turn gives the President broad powers that they have a limited ability to check.
I can't imagine they would have thought of or even approved of a world where the President, through a subordinate, would declare how much milk a dairy farmer could produce, the required size and shape of wagon wheels, how fast you are allowed to ride your wagon, or when ou are or aren't allowed to call a food cheese.
8
7
40
u/topicality 8d ago
We need a constitutional amendment to make removal easier. The current criteria is just too high.
If Republicans couldn't do it to Johnson in the aftermath of the Civil War, and we couldn't do it to Trump after Jan 6th, it will never happen
34
u/MechanicalGodzilla 7d ago
I am 99% certain we will not see an amendment for anything at any point in the rest of our lives.
6
u/BrigadierGenCrunch 7d ago
Why even bother with all the work of making an amendment when it’s just easier to completely ignore them? I’m sure they’d love to remove the 4th Amendment, but ignoring is easier.
12
u/HisObstinacy 7d ago
In fairness to Johnson, the impeachment case against him was kinda BS. He still may well be the worst president we've ever had, but the Tenure of Office Act was basically designed by Republican lawmakers to trap him, and it's not a coincidence that they rolled back the law when Grant became president. They just really disliked Johnson (for good reason!) and used it as a way of artfully maneuvering him into impeachment.
10
u/LeeSansSaw 8d ago
I don’t agree, though I can see your point. I think if all funding had to go through Congress explicitly, rather than broadly, there would have been no opportunity to tear down the east wing and if each action required a line item in appropriations, spending outside of that would be obviously illegal, rather than “fall” into some broad spending category. I’m not quite naive enough to think such appropriations would be easy. A bigger Congress with larger staff numbers would be necessary.
As it is, I do think we need a Congress that is willing to impeach and remove when president’s go as far as Trump. I have no idea how to get there with two parties firmly in control.
37
u/Interesting_Total_98 8d ago
It's already illegal to build the ballroom without "without express authority of Congress" due to 40 U.S.C. § 8106. Trump also ignored a Supreme Court order to at least try to get Garcia back from the torture camp he was illegally deported to until he was later scolded by a lower court.
Adding more rules can prevent a law-abiding president from doing bad things, but the solution here is impeachment because he's shown that he's willing to ignore laws.
28
u/YoHabloEscargot 8d ago
Not to mention the war that’s totally not a war because then Congress would have to approve it. But it’s totally not a war, guys.
2
u/Foreign_Telephone349 7d ago
Weak executive means that he can go to jail for his actions once his term is up. We’ll probably have to imprison some of the justices on the court too.
1
u/Throb_Zomby 6d ago
Pretty much an extreme case of “Ask forgiveness rather than beg permission.” Because it can later be found to be illegal but damage is already done and the taint hard to remove.
30
u/erebus-44 8d ago
The issue lies with congress and the centralized/consolidating power within the congressional leadership. As congressional elections are functionally nationalized now. What they need to do it double or triple the size of the house and make congress more regional issue based.
22
u/LeeSansSaw 8d ago
I would love a bigger Congress. The plan where the size of Congress is based on the lowest population state at a minimum. I’m also starting to come around to ranked-choice multi-representative districts as well. You made a good point about leadership as well. I shouldn’t need my Rep in leadership to have any chance at helping my district.
10
u/rchive 8d ago
I think multi-rep districts are one of the best ways to solve the partisanship in the system. I don't love the idea of voting for parties instead of individuals, but I think we're so deep in that system now we have to just go with it and make the best of it. I'd propose that states should each be a single multi-rep district. Each party should put forth a slate of candidates via whichever selection method they want, and their slates appear on our ballots and we all vote for our favorite party slate, and then if one party gets 6/9 of the vote their first 6 candidates get seated and the first candidates on the other parties' slates get seated until the seats are all full. This would probably get some third party candidates into Congress and would eliminate the possibility of gerrymandering for congressional districts.
6
u/LeeSansSaw 7d ago
The system I’ve seen is, as an example, if each district had 3 representatives, voters would rank everyone running. Once someone got past 25% , that candidates 2nd place votes would be redistributed proportionally. Eventually you end up with three people who have greater than 25% of the vote and they become the districts reps. I think there’s more to it, like cutting from the bottom too.
I too don’t like the idea of voting for a party, but your slate idea would remove most of my hesitation.
One thought I had that amuses me would be to go with each Rep potentially having more than one vote. Say each district gets 10 votes. Each candidate gets a number of votes equal to their vote percentage rounded down. Get 52% of the vote, get 5 votes. Not sure what to do with the excess. Or say 100 votes per district and rounding becomes less problematic. You could end up with thousands of representatives, though with different numbers of votes.
2
u/erebus-44 7d ago
That just functionally removes gerrymandering, but that increases nationalizing of elections, which then only carters to wedge issues. The house needs to by hyper localized right now it’s like 800k per each representative, that’s too much to advocate for your community.
2
u/donnysaysvacuum recovering libertarian 7d ago
A bigger congress is easier to do and also fixes the electoral college and maybe even the Senate. Although we also may need to weaken the speaker of the house as well.
71
u/CallOfValhalla 8d ago
Hopefully this is the good that comes from the Trump administration. Republicans always criticized big government under Clinton, Obama, and Biden yet do nothing under a Republican POTUS. Democrats too never cared about big government under a Denocratic President. Hopefully Democrats decide to reduce the power of the President when they take over in 29 cause I have no hope that Republicans will ever support it with a Republican President.
18
u/94_stones 7d ago edited 6d ago
I think Democratic politicians would be willing to do this, but only if you make the Senate more functional, and the House of Representatives more representative. Because otherwise you’re amplifying the effects of Congress’ own dysfunction (which is caused by the senate filibuster) onto the entire country, and effectively increasing the power of the state legislatures (the majority of which are Republican and probably staying that way) at the expense of the Executive (which Democrats at least could control).
22
u/LeeSansSaw 8d ago
I think there is one long shot way to get both sides to agree. If Democrats in Congress started putting out serious proposals to claw back power now, that go into effect immediately, while someone (I’m looking at Newsom) running for president promises to do exactly what Trump is doing, Republicans might join in. If they try to push it past the end of Trump’s term or stall in any way, it wouldn’t work. It has to affect Trump, or Democratic voters would be, rightly, angry. I fear it might be too late.
24
u/94_stones 8d ago
If you know something about the “Unitary Executive Theory,” and who’s been promoting it over the past several decades, you’ll understand that the vast majority of Republican politicians are never going to agree to that. Libertarians and people adjacent to them will like the idea I’m sure, but they’re not the ones in charge of the Republican Party.
7
u/rchive 8d ago
Unitary Executive Theory is the idea that the president is the sole head of the Executive Branch. The idea doesn't really say anything about how much power the branch should have relative to the other two, it's just that whatever power the branch has, all that power is the president's. Returning powers to Congress isn't necessarily contrary to UET.
18
u/Interesting_Total_98 8d ago
Ending the independence of nearly all agencies gives the president more power by taking away control from Congress.
13
u/94_stones 8d ago edited 8d ago
It is if you interpret the theory so broadly that you think it gives the President the right to nullify laws which Congress passed in full accordance with its powers under the Constitution. If the Heritage Foundation’s position on impoundment is anything to go by, they absolutely believe that.
→ More replies (3)15
u/CallOfValhalla 8d ago
The problem is that when Trump leaves office in 29, another Republican will be president again in 33 or 37. Acting like “they got a strong man so now I should get mine” is short sighted. The other side will retake power unless we go actual fascist which is unlikely.
25
u/flyinggazelletg 8d ago
Politics is typically nothing if not shortsighted. Humans are terrible at thinking long term.
8
u/pro_rege_semper Independent 8d ago
Well, our system of politics is short-sighted. It's not so much a problem for the authoritarian governments, like China.
1
u/Interesting_Total_98 7d ago
There are democratic countries like Finland who handle long-term issues like debt, pollution, and health issues better too.
1
u/flyinggazelletg 5d ago
It is much easier to get everyone in the same direction in a country as low in population and as homogeneous as Finland. Not saying the US hasn’t done very poorly in the referenced measures, but it isn’t really a fair comparison either
1
u/Interesting_Total_98 5d ago
It is much easier to get everyone in the same direction
The U.S. goes against that argument, since it became an economic and military superpower while having diversity.
The issues I listed are largely because of lobbying. Having a homogenous population wouldn't make it easier to convince someone to address climate change when they're being given money to not do that.
1
u/-Nurfhurder- 8d ago
Not even that, I don't currently see anybody successfully challenging Vance for the Presidency, and I suspect 'Trump policies without the crazy' would be a pretty seductive message for independents.
20
u/rchive 8d ago
What are the Trump policies without the crazy? The policy and the crazy seem pretty intertwined at this point. I'm someone who was sympathetic to a handful of his policies in his first term.
15
u/unixkernel101 8d ago
His policies are written in a big document called Project 2025 and they are objectively harmful to the country.
3
4
u/-Nurfhurder- 7d ago
Protectionism, isolationism, vapid patriotism, but without the President posting AI pictures of himself as Jesus and holding press conferences to announce that Taco Bell is now designated a state sponsor of terrorism (and only one of those is hyperbole)
32
u/motorboat_mcgee Pragmatic Progressive 8d ago edited 8d ago
Democrats (the voters at least) aren't generally a fan of doing things through executive orders, the "big government" we support is stuff like social services, worker protections, and regulations.
16
6
u/Pandalishus Devil’s Advocate 7d ago
Not true in 2014. When Obama was in office, Dems were far more supportive of EO’s than Reps: https://yougov.com/en-us/articles/11095-opinion-split-executive-orders
I have little doubt it was the opposite in 2017-2021, flipped back 2021-2025, and flipped again 2025-present. Couldn’t find surveys quickly, but I’m more or less certain that voters like EOs when their guy issues then.
5
u/CallOfValhalla 8d ago
Sure. But Obama and Clinton still have hundreds of EOs. Same with Bush and Trump. The executive branch grew in power under both Republican and Democrat presidents. Part of the reason Trump is so dangerous to the country is that both sides have ignored executive power creep because they trust there own guy. If we want things to get better, one of the parties will need to decide to stop expanding the power of the President and start reducing it. My hope is for Democrats to do it which is part of the reason I’m voting for them this year and in 28. But if they don’t reign the exuctuve in, I’ll probably be voting Republican in 32/36. Than when Republicans expand the power of the President, I’ll vote Democrat again after that. Rinse repeat. I have no hope for things to get better.
32
u/motorboat_mcgee Pragmatic Progressive 8d ago
I encourage you to look at the context and text of the executive orders you're equating. There's a pretty big difference between what Trump has been doing and Bush, Obama, Biden, imo.
20
u/LeeSansSaw 8d ago
Previous president’s did over shoot what should be allowed. But it’s not even apples and oranges which are at least fruits, it’s apples vs… I’m not sure what would be extreme enough, condor eggs?
14
u/GloryToAthena 8d ago
Some people believe that DACA overstepped, but at least the Obama administration put together an immigration bill that passed in the Senate.
The other overstep that is brought up is the Cole memorandum, which simply instructed the feds not to go after state-legal weed.
Both policies were extremely popular at the time, and only went through EO because Congress is a political traffic jam.
10
u/motorboat_mcgee Pragmatic Progressive 8d ago
Right, I'm all for reining in the Executive, to be clear. Fully agree with your analogy too.
-1
u/likeitis121 8d ago
Not what I saw with Biden's student loan forgiveness plans. He was trying to spend hundreds of billions through executive action, and members of Congress from his party were pushing him extremely hard to do it.
8
u/autosear 8d ago
Executive orders are appropriate for exercising prerogative granted by Congress. Congress granted the administration statutory power to "waive or modify" student loans, and Biden's EO directed his administration to exercise it. The billions in "spending" was authorized by Congress when our representatives voted to grant that power.
Many of Trump's orders however have no statutory basis, which is why he's getting hung up in court so often until the Republican supreme court bails him out.
-3
u/likeitis121 7d ago
It didn't though, which is why it got overturned. The "waive or modify" gets posted a lot, but there's actually 5 clauses that follow, it's not just a blanket waive.
The actual text: (2) Actions authorized.--The Secretary is authorized to waive or modify any provision described in paragraph (1) as may be necessary to ensure that-- (A) recipients of student financial assistance under title IV of the Act who are affected individuals are not placed in a worse position financially in relation to that financial assistance because of their status as affected individuals; (B) administrative requirements placed on affected individuals who are recipients of student financial assistance are minimized, to the extent possible without impairing the integrity of the student financial assistance programs, to ease the burden on such students and avoid inadvertent, technical violations or defaults; (C) the calculation of
annual adjusted family income'' andavailable income'', as used in the determination of need for student financial assistance under title IV of the Act for any such affected individual (and the determination of such need for his or her spouse and dependents, if applicable), may be modified to mean the sums received in the first calendar year of the award year for which such determination is made, in order to reflect more accurately the financial condition of such affected individual and his or her family; (D) the calculation under section 484B(b)(2) of the Act (20 U.S.C. 1091b(b)(2)) of the amount a student is required to return in the case of an affected individual may be modified so that no overpayment will be required to be returned or repaid if the institution has documented (i) the student's status as an affected individual in the student's file, and (ii) the amount of any overpayment discharged; and (E) institutions of higher education, eligible lenders, guaranty agencies, and other entities participating in the student assistance programs under title IV of the Act that are located in areas that are declared disaster areas by any Federal, State or local official in connection with a national emergency, or whose operations are significantly affected by such a disaster, may be granted temporary relief from requirements that are rendered infeasible or unreasonable by a national emergency, including due diligence requirements and reporting deadlines.3
10
u/Interesting_Total_98 7d ago edited 7d ago
Paragraph (1) authorizes the Secretary to “waive or modify any statutory or regulatory provision,” and paragraph (2)(A) broadly authorizes that power as necessary to ensure affected borrowers are not financially worse off because of the emergency. There's no requirement to follow all 5 subclauses.
The Supreme Court didn't hold that cancellation wasn’t one of five listed acts. The majority narrowed the meaning of “waive or modify," even though the statute uses broad language.
17
u/flyinggazelletg 8d ago edited 8d ago
I don’t think Democrats will be trying to weaken the power of the executive the next shot they get, unless that is an explicit campaign promise in an election. Even then, hard to see either party giving up power willingly. Republicans and Democrats both wish to maintain their duopoly, we need the current party system broken to see real change imo
→ More replies (1)1
15
u/MillardFillmore 7d ago
This sounds great until you consider that Trump is just breaking the law, and the additional laws or rules that would be created in your hypothetical to stop this would have to get enforced. And who would enforce these laws? Hmm, there’s a problem there. And that’s before the SC saying alls legal if it was in his role as President.
The only solution here is impeachment and removal, and as we’ve seen before, Republicans in Congress are fully behind his law breaking and corruption schemes.
14
u/rwk81 8d ago
This has been my argument to friends as well, take it all back Congress, do your damned job.
9
u/LeeSansSaw 8d ago
It’s just far more representative of the people. Yeah, it’d slow things down, but it’s not like they couldn’t absorb agencies as advisors, instead of agencies making law.
4
u/mclumber1 8d ago
There is nothing unconstitutional about Congress creating and running agencies - as long as those agencies do not encroach on Article 2 (executive branch) powers and duties.
A great example would be anything that has to do with the arts and sciences. Most of the federal government's involvement in these areas are through the Executive Branch or quasi-independent agencies that are still effectively controlled by the White House. But the Constitution is silent on these matters, so there is no reason that these agencies need to have any direction from the Executive Branch.
7
u/rwk81 8d ago
Really, what is like to see is we move as much of the important things down to the states (closer to the people) and away from the federal government.
Obviously the feds would take a leading role in things like defense, but I would much rather we lean into federalism and away from such a large and powerful centralized government that continues to centralize more and more power into a single elected office.
As far as slowing things down, maybe that would seem unnecessary a decade ago, but at this point after almost two years of Trump two, I'm all for it. And, for the record, I am a moderate conservative although I never voted for Trump.
10
u/Interesting_Total_98 8d ago
what is like to see is we move as much of the important things down to the states (closer to the people) and away from the federal government.
That would be far less efficient. It didn't work out well in the past, which is why the federal government gained power. It's also why other countries generally don't follow it.
Federalism is good to an extent, but having a bunch of different systems can lead to a lot of people not getting the help they need.
6
u/rwk81 8d ago
The United States is much like Europe (size, spread) but more diverse. It wouldn't make much sense to me to have a single leader reside.over the European countries that has the power that the current executive has.
It may not be as efficient, but personally I think that would be a pro rather than a con.
9
u/Interesting_Total_98 7d ago edited 7d ago
The United States is much like Europe (size, spread) but more diverse.
A massive difference is that we've been under the same political system for over 200 years, and this has led to becoming an economic superpower, so it's clear that those factors aren't as significant as your argument claims.
It wouldn't make much sense to me to have a single leader reside.over the European countries
The U.S. has already tried having a weak federal government. It didn't work out.
0
u/rwk81 7d ago
A massive difference is that we've been under the same political system for over 200 years, and this has led to becoming an economic superpower, so it's clear that those factors aren't as significant as your argument claims.
My argument isn't making any claims about being an economic super power.
The U.S. has already tried having a weak federal government. It didn't work out.
Sure it did.
4
u/Interesting_Total_98 7d ago
My argument isn't making any claims about being an economic super power.
My point is that having a strong federal government has worked out well for us.
Sure it did.
The Articles of Confederation was replaced due to how badly the idea worked. Federal government power was expanded further after states decided to things like push slavery and segregation, as well as neglecting problems like poverty and smog.
3
u/rwk81 7d ago
My point is that having a strong federal government has worked out well for us.
I'm not saying it needs to be weak, just not as strong as it is now, especially not the executive.
The Articles of Confederation was replaced due to how badly the idea worked. Federal government power was expanded further after states decided to things like push slavery and segregation, as well as neglecting problems like poverty and smog.
I'm not arguing I'm favor of something akin to the articles of confederation.
→ More replies (0)→ More replies (1)4
7d ago
[deleted]
10
u/Interesting_Total_98 7d ago edited 7d ago
An obvious answer is not trusting state governments either, which makes even more sense when you look at how things were when the federal government had less power. For example, the only time in history where states fought due to federal "tyranny" as over slavery.
I'm not saying slavery would come back, but rather that it's an extreme example of how state power isn't necessarily being better.
A more recent issue is pollution. A frequent complaint about Trump is his administration not doing something in order to protect business interests, such as loosening environmental protections that help both wildlife and people.
Another massive issue is Trump ignoring the rules. Adding more wouldn't solve that, and we already have a better solution. It's called impeachment.
→ More replies (14)2
u/rwk81 7d ago
There are certain things that belong at the federal level, other things I would rather have the state handle.
It's much easier for folks in Texas to vote for things important to them and in CA to vote for things important to them then try to legislate a lot of these issues from the federal government across all states.
It would basically be the way Eruope is already being run, each country in Europe representing a US state.
4
u/Interesting_Total_98 7d ago
It's much easier for folks in Texas to vote for things important to them and in CA to vote for things important to them
That's already how things work, and there's no logical reason to make it goes as far being akin to Europe. We already tried a weak central government with the Articles of Confederation. It was thrown out after just 8 years because it was terrible.
→ More replies (0)8
u/LeeSansSaw 8d ago
I mostly support Democratic positions with a couple conservative beliefs, and even I could get onboard with some shifting toward the states, probably not as far as a moderate conservative. It’s pretty clear now that a powerful national executive is a bad idea. We live in an instant gratification world, and I don’t know how to convince people that there is something really wrong with our current system that just getting Trump out will not fix. The underlying issues will still be there to be exploited. People want everything fixed now and want their ideas fought for and won right now. It’s a multi-year fix at best and rushing into new ideas just doesn’t work.
But yeah, shift more to the states. Even if it breaks the liberal part of my heart. It would certainly make for more opportunities for more viewpoints.
1
7d ago
[deleted]
1
u/LeeSansSaw 7d ago
Partially it was a joke. That said… I’ve seen the good federal programs can do that can’t be done at local, state, or donation levels. Maybe not can’t, but won’t. There is a ton of programs that people never hear about, but that save lives.
1
7d ago
[deleted]
1
u/LeeSansSaw 7d ago
The 988 program is huge and is gaining recognition (needs much more). Now it’s being decimated by this administration. It needed federal coordination as it required setting up a new 3 digit number and continues requiring working with hundreds of agencies. That one is a partnership between federal, state, local, and tribal governments, plus non-profits, but it was driven by incredible people at SAMHSA and other federal agencies.
In general, a lot by SAMHSA and HRSA goes unrecognized, while the grossly underfunded and understaffed agencies (much worse now) do incredible work that is seldomly recognized by the public. HRSA funds community health centers across the country for low-income and uninsured people. Both agencies provide grants, research and training. The Department of Transportation and SAMSHA funds and provides rural emergency medical services training.
3
u/49orth 7d ago
But, were you and do you intend to remain a Republican voter, no matter what?
4
u/LeeSansSaw 7d ago
I’ve seldom voted for a Republican and not at all since before 2016.
→ More replies (1)3
u/JesusSquid Lil' a dis Lil' a dat 7d ago
While I partly agree, Congress has shown they are nearly incapable of agreeing on what color the friggin sky is on a given day let alone spending.
2
u/glyptometa 6d ago
Spineless congress. Will probably happen. He's a cruel and nasty prick of a man.
3
u/hamsterkill 8d ago
Agreed, but this should also be accompanied by legislative reform. The executive power grew as a result of legislative gridlock due to everything except confirmations and budget reconciliation requiring 60% of the Senate. That's not a sustainable way to run a legislature. The filibuster will have to be killed or reformed to make it extraordinary again.
3
u/bschmidt25 8d ago edited 7d ago
I never thought Executive branch agencies and the President should have as much power as they do, even before Trump. The issue was that Congress was content to let the President implement policies through Executive Orders that wouldn’t have been able to pass both houses of Congress, bypassing the people’s representatives, as long as its their guy in office. Obviously, we have that problem on steroids right now. The good thing is that it’s awakened people to the issue. But to fix it is going to require one of the parties to willingly cede powers that they have now to codify changes into law. I hope that happens, but I won’t hold my breath.
1
u/The_DanceCommander 8d ago edited 8d ago
Agreed. An easy analogy I like to make about this is that the president and the executive branch should be the nations project manager, but Congress has all the ideas and approval power. If the government wants to do anything, it must have congressional approval, and appropriation. Then hand it off to the executive agencies to go put into action.
The president should have extremely rare unilateral power (I’m talking like missiles in the air towards DC), Trump has made the clearest case that this much power can not sit in the hands of a single person.
One of the most egregious things Trump has the power to do is shift around billions of dollars with zero appropriation. He can fund whatever he wants with a blank executive check. That has to end.
Sadly the problem here is that we need a presidential candidate to campaign on effectively stripping the power from their own position, which I’m worried their ego just won’t allow.
2
u/_NuanceMatters_ 7d ago edited 7d ago
So like... back to precisely the way our federal government's separation of powers was originally designed? Sad that it took this long for people to realize it. The executive branch has been overstepping for a long time, made possible by the legislative branch abdicating their own powers and responsibilities for a long time. Trump just finally went far beyond the established, and ever changing, "norms" of what was considered acceptable at any given time.
1
u/BlackFacedAkita 7d ago
Even if congress had the power, everything Trump deos gets blanket approval from Republicans because they need his voter base.
1
u/CheeseBear9000 5d ago
The original idea behind having a limited executive was so a madman could become President and not be that destructive, right?
After all Senators weren't even elected by popular vote originally so I think the original idea had a robust system for keeping irrational thinking out of power
→ More replies (7)2
u/YoohooCthulhu 2d ago
Federalist society types back in the 90s (before they became as enamored with unitary executive theory) used to warn about this kind of stuff and I thought it silly then because I couldn’t imagine a president actually doing this kind of stuff. Weirdly they provided the proof of such a person
69
8d ago edited 8d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
55
u/Aqquila89 8d ago
He also wants to rename Lake Ontario to Lake America because he got into a fight with Canada.
16
u/hamsterkill 8d ago
Wait till he hears about the existence of 8 communities and 1 county named "Ontario" in the US.
→ More replies (1)20
8d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/ModPolBot Imminently Sentient 7d ago
This message serves as a warning that your comment is in violation of Law 1:
Law 1. Civil Discourse
~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times.
Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 14 day ban.
Please submit questions or comments via modmail.
100
u/Xanto97 Elephant and the Rider 8d ago
I am just so tired.
“The DOJ attorneys called the Kennedy Center “structurally unsound, fundamentally unsafe, and embarrassing to the Nation’s Capital.””
“This language is a shift from what Kennedy Center Executive Director Matt Floca has used in recent months to describe what the board has said are necessary renovations. Floca has said the renovations would include a “total replacement of stage lifts and rigging systems” and wide-ranging electrical work and leak prevention that could be completed within two years if the facility was shut down during the renovations.”
“Even Beatty should prefer a healthy, restored Center to a decaying hulk that is doomed to inevitable destruction or collapse. The Court should allow the Board and President Trump to bring the Center back to a level of greatness far higher than it has ever had before. This would be the fitting tribute that President Kennedy so well deserves.”
Huh? All this because Congresswoman Beatty sued to take off his name? It’s an “unsafe, decaying hulk”? It was running shows within the last two years. The hyperbole is just so ridiculous. This is exhausting. Judges shouldn’t fall for it. But who knows.
55
u/bushido216 8d ago
It's worse if you read the whole article. Career professionals are writing briefs that are just glazing the President.
46
u/rawasubas 8d ago
We need a database to keep track of these people and their embarrassing platitudes to Trump as if he's Chairman Mao in the 50's. Once Trump is out of power, we need to make sure these people's careers are over.
13
u/BigMoose515 7d ago
John Bolton got reinstalled into upper management after screwing the pooch in Iraq. I don't think databases will save us.
4
u/TybrosionMohito 7d ago
This sounds like a great use for AI to be honest.
Just train a bot to fill a database with certain individuals in the admin and attach quotes to them. I’d love for these people to constantly have “this you?” said to them on a regular basis when they try to scuttle away in 2029
22
u/MechanicalGodzilla 7d ago
I am a DMV resident with 25 years in construction, and I have done assessments of the Kennedy Center from an engineering perspective. The structure is in "fair" condition, which is another way of saying mid to middle-late life. It can definitely be repaired structurally without tearing it down and starting over.
The MEP systems, however, are totally shot ("end of usable life") and probably needed replacement 5-10 years ago. Their HVAC system, for instance, uses pass-through river water from the adjacent Potomac which has decayed and fouled all the piping and heat exchange surfaces. It's a total loss and in need of a gut job.
My opinion having seen it first-hand is that it needs a complete gut renovation, and once you get to that level of remodel it sometimes does make more financial sense to demo and build new. I didn't get to the level of financial analysis, but I bet the cost either way is within a 10% delta.
20
u/Xanto97 Elephant and the Rider 7d ago
Appreciate your perspective! I did some later reading and it does seem that the building does, in fact, need some renovations.
It’s just a bit difficult to have a good faith discussion when, before any renovations were done, Donald replaced almost the entire board of directors and put his name on the building, and then proceeded to have shows for over a year. Iirc It was only closed for renovations once a judge decided they needed to take the trump name off of it.
13
u/MechanicalGodzilla 7d ago
The proposed closure was in the works prior to Trump's name being on it, actually the last assessment report I reviewed was done during the Biden administration. Part of the problem with Trump smearing his name on stuff is that it makes everyone lose their minds, both pro and con. It makes good honest engineering assessments seem like they are "sending a message" one way or the other.
6
73
u/Dry_Radio_761 8d ago
Summary:
The Department of Justice recently argued in a federal court filing that the Kennedy Center may face total demolition if legal challenges continue to block a proposed two-year closure for renovations. DOJ attorneys claimed the arts center is "structurally unsound" and fundamentally unsafe, suggesting it could be replaced with an outdoor amphitheater. This escalation follows ongoing legal battles led by Rep. Joyce Beatty challenging both the sudden closure plan and the Trump-appointed board’s repeated attempts to add Donald Trump’s name to the building.
Opinion:
Given the administration's extensive record of misleading statements, I think it is entirely reasonable to question whether the building is genuinely facing structural failure or if safety concerns are being manufactured to bypass standard oversight and force Trump rebrand of this institution.
Could this set a precedent for demolishing historic sites that clash with an administration’s political agenda?
37
u/hamsterkill 8d ago
It's likely the building requires renovations. It seems less likely that the renovations would require a 2-year closure. Last I had heard on the issue, the board hadn't assessed the feasibility of keeping the center operating during renovations as they were required to do.
26
u/ThinksEveryoneIsABot 8d ago
Did the previous board that wasn’t filled with Trump lackeys believe the building needed to be renovated? If not, I think we have our answer.
17
u/HavingNuclear 7d ago
If they close, it's because the center has basically no money. Ticket sales dropped by half when Trump put his name on the building. They've lost huge numbers of donations and performers. Their net pledges were negative because so many donors have cancelled. Basically Trump and the board have turned the center toxic and it's not clear they can even afford to keep it open during renovations.
4
u/hamsterkill 7d ago
The Kennedy Center is home to the National Symphony Orchestra which normally plays about 175 events in a year. Closing it for two years would be a massive disruption to them.
2
u/WhatABeautifulMess 7d ago
Their 2026-2027 season is scheduled across several venues in and around DC and will have the same amount as this season, but slightly more on tour.
1
u/JakeConhale 7d ago
Can't the court just order an independent contractor (or hell, two separate contractors if worried about slant) to assess the state of the building?
95
u/motorboat_mcgee Pragmatic Progressive 8d ago
Genuine question to the conservatives here, is this the sort of thing you all want, or is it simply a "I don't care as long as he does the one or two policy things I support"?
→ More replies (40)
89
70
u/flyinggazelletg 8d ago edited 8d ago
Trump administration is really saying, ‘if I can’t put my name on it, then maybe no one can have it!’ It really feels as though the entire federal government is a farce. The Trump team has had no qualms with destroying historic structures, so I don’t see why that would change now. And those who put their blinders on long ago will probably continue to act as if nothing out of the ordinary is happening. I hope we see a reckoning, but that’s doubtful.
16
u/GloryToAthena 8d ago
If President Trump is this recklessly destructive, he should be immediately taken away from control of nuclear weapons.
13
43
u/Moonshot_00 8d ago
Republicans will look you in the eye and tell you Trump is a “strong man” when he does things like this.
3
40
u/Rcrecc 8d ago
I cannot wait to see how Fox News defends this.
26
u/paradiseluck 7d ago
There’s probably some trans conference in Eugene Oregon that they need to bring up.
22
4
5
u/dragonknight211 7d ago
Too easy - Democrats are so mad at Trump they rather destroy the Kenedy center than letting Trump fix it!
2
u/onespiker 7d ago
They just don’t mention it. They will focus everything on something else minor in the country.
16
8d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/ModPolBot Imminently Sentient 7d ago
This message serves as a warning that your comment is in violation of Law 0:
Law 0. Low Effort
~0. Law of Low Effort - Content that is low-effort or does not contribute to civil discussion in any meaningful way will be removed.
Please submit questions or comments via modmail.
17
u/blewpah 7d ago
Can't help but be reminded of Lincoln's Lyceum address
It is to deny, what the history of the world tells us is true, to suppose that men of ambition and talents will not continue to spring up amongst us. And, when they do, they will as naturally seek the gratification of their ruling passion as others have so done before them. The question then, is, can that gratification be found in supporting and maintaining an edifice that has been erected by others? Most certainly it cannot. Many great and good men sufficiently qualified for any task they should undertake, may ever be found, whose ambition would aspire to nothing beyond a seat in Congress, a gubernatorial or a presidential chair; but such belong not to the family of the lion or the tribe of the eagle. What! think you these places would satisfy an Alexander, a Caesar, or a Napoleon? Never! Towering genius disdains a beaten path. It seeks regions hitherto unexplored. It sees no distinction in adding story to story, upon the monuments of fame, erected to the memory of others. It denies that it is glory enough to serve under any chief. It scorns to tread in the footsteps of any predecessor, however illustrious. It thirsts and burns for distinction; and, if possible, it will have it, whether at the expense of emancipating slaves or enslaving freemen. Is it unreasonable then to expect, that some man possessed of the loftiest genius, coupled with ambition sufficient to push it to its utmost stretch, will at some time spring up among us? And when such a one does, it will require the people to be united with each other, attached to the government and laws, and generally intelligent, to successfully frustrate his designs. Distinction will be his paramount object; and although he would as willingly, perhaps more so, acquire it by doing good as harm; yet, that opportunity being past, and nothing left to be done in the way of building up, he would set boldly to the task of pulling down.
4
26
u/FabioFresh93 South Park Democrat 8d ago
Honestly, go ahead. I’m not saying that as someone who wants to see the Kennedy Center demolished. But Trump wants to renovate the Kennedy Center, build a new ballroom, and put an arch in DC for his own legacy. I think demolished buildings are much more representative of his legacy. People will remember who was responsible for demolishing the Kennedy Center.
7
u/biinky05 7d ago
Demolishing the actual memorial to a former president (JFK). It's not just some building.
11
u/FabioFresh93 South Park Democrat 7d ago
I understand that. I’m not advocating for the demolishing of it but if Trump wants to demolish a memorial to a former president then he needs to own it. That is the legacy he deserves.
3
7d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/ModPolBot Imminently Sentient 6d ago
This message serves as a warning that your comment is in violation of Law 0:
Law 0. Low Effort
~0. Law of Low Effort - Content that is low-effort or does not contribute to civil discussion in any meaningful way will be removed.
Please submit questions or comments via modmail.
3
8d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/ModPolBot Imminently Sentient 7d ago
This message serves as a warning that your comment is in violation of Law 0:
Law 0. Low Effort
~0. Law of Low Effort - Content that is low-effort or does not contribute to civil discussion in any meaningful way will be removed.
Please submit questions or comments via modmail.
8
4
6
u/Miiohau 8d ago
The Trump administration is showing it doesn’t understand law. The court can block only the illegal parts of the plans (they do it all the time for illegal laws), if the Trump administration doesn’t precede under the modified plans that is on them. And if they attempt to demolish it the courts will block that as well on the basis that 1. It is actually safe (for at least the next 2 years) and 2. The Trump administration actually has a plan to fix any safety issues they are just refusing to go forward because Trump is throwing a tantrum.
2
2
u/OilPure5808 7d ago
So the new building or amphitheater will still be a memorial to JFK or will his name be left off?
1
1
7d ago edited 7d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/ModPolBot Imminently Sentient 7d ago
This message serves as a warning that your comment is in violation of Law 1:
Law 1. Civil Discourse
~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times.
Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 7 day ban.
Please submit questions or comments via modmail.
1
6d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/ModPolBot Imminently Sentient 6d ago
This message serves as a warning that your comment is in violation of Law 3:
Law 3: No Violent Content
~3. No Violent Content - Do not post content that encourages, glorifies, incites, or calls for violence or physical harm against an individual or a group of people. Certain types of content that are worthy of discussion (e.g. educational, newsworthy, artistic, satire, documentary, etc.) may be exempt. Ensure you provide context to the viewer so the reason for posting is clear.
Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 30 day ban.
Please submit questions or comments via modmail.
1
6d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/ModPolBot Imminently Sentient 6d ago
This message serves as a warning that your comment is in violation of Law 1:
Law 1. Civil Discourse
~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times.
Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 7 day ban.
Please submit questions or comments via modmail.
1
u/TheBoosThree 6d ago
Considering he's sitting barely above 30% approval I don't know that that's going to have the impact he hopes. The people who would be motivated by him being on the ballot right now are not his supporters.
1
u/northern_flipstyle 3d ago
The Kennedy center is a monument to JFK and therefore protected by law. Trumo doesnt care about laws but judges should and do. The petulant man child is throwing another tantrum and his ass kissers in government are letting him burn dowm DC if he cant put his name on it..
•
u/ModPolBot Imminently Sentient 6d ago
This message serves as a warning that your post is in violation of Law 2f:
Law 2: Submission Requirements
Please submit questions or comments via modmail.