@hicksticks2001 @the3rdestate_cl @ChrisDJackson That means that Congress can exempt specific sites from their restrictions; as Congress did here:
codes.findlaw.com/us/title-54-na…
English
Phil of Ockham
26.1K posts
Phil of Ockham
@PhilsRazor
I will rationally and politely discuss anything and assume you are an adult, until you prove otherwise.
Katılım Nisan 2022
597 Takip Edilen406 Takipçiler
@PhilsRazor @the3rdestate_cl @ChrisDJackson The property clause of the USA constitution (Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2) explicitly grants Congress control and of federal property
The Supreme Court has interpreted this as plenary - meaning Congress is the absolute authority on federal property, without limit or exclusion
English
A basketball court? Please. He put a goal on the tennis courts. That is not even remotely comparable to tearing down a main structure without permission and building a monstrosity that would dwarf the actual White House.
Lance Gooden@Lancegooden
President FDR built an indoor swimming pool with private funds. President Obama built a basketball court with private funds. Yet a single judge can block President Trump from building a PRIVATELY FUNDED ballroom that would benefit generations to come.
English
@the3rdestate_cl @hicksticks2001 @ChrisDJackson The Executive Branch actually does control federal property, to a greater extent than the Legislative or Judiciary, in the absence of the expenditure of public funds (which Congress must authorize).
There are only 3 branches. Gotta be 1 of them.
English
@PhilsRazor @hicksticks2001 @ChrisDJackson what is the alert...POTUS does not control federal property, with or without private funds...there is an allowance for upkeep of the white house property and trump the asshole is trying to make that binding to all changes...cl
English
@hicksticks2001 @the3rdestate_cl @ChrisDJackson I'm sure that was one side of the argument.
I'm also sure there is another side.
English
@PhilsRazor @the3rdestate_cl @ChrisDJackson This is what was specifically discussed in this court case. The east wing was essentially a separate building and this law specifically applied to it regarding the ruling and the arguments made in court.
English
@SpockResists Looks like the voters figured out that they could vote themselves largesse from the public treasury.
And spineless politicians are afraid to tell them "no".
English
There is only one reason America is choking in debt.
Because it doesn’t tax the corporations and billionaires.
So the U.S. spends more than it collects in taxes.
So it just gets more and more into debt.
By borrowing from those billionaires.
And other countries.
English
English
@PhilsRazor @hicksticks2001 @ChrisDJackson so getting around the laws and shit to do what you want is something you promote?....cl
English
@EditrixLane @ChrisDJackson We had an election.
America chose to vest Executive authority in Trump.
Deal with it.
English
@PhilsRazor @ChrisDJackson Dude, do you really think the President has unfettered ability to tear down the Washington Monument? Raze the White House? Sell Yellowstone? He’s actually not a dictator or a monarch. He doesn’t own federal land.
English
@hicksticks2001 @the3rdestate_cl @ChrisDJackson You posted a statute, so adult points for that.
I have to point out that there is already a building erected on the site of the White House, and that the statute says "erecting" (not "constructing", not "modifying").
Congress certainly needs to approve tax $ spending.
English
@PhilsRazor @the3rdestate_cl @ChrisDJackson 40 U.S.C. § 8106 explicitly requires "express authority of Congress" before constructing public buildings/structures on federal land in the Washington DC.
English
@SSWorks What % of your income will you get back when you retire?
What % will billionaires get back? They're capped.
You can't pretend it's "an investment" and then blatantly rob people who aren't going to get back their money.
English
You pay 12.4% of your income into Social Security.
Billionaires pay .0002%
And then the same billionaires tell us we "can't afford" Social Security.
The only thing we can't afford is billionaires!
English
@EditrixLane @ChrisDJackson I see that the Commission of Fine Arts actually did vote to approve the ballroom, on 2/19/26.
So, all good.
English
@PhilsRazor @ChrisDJackson No, there is a commission that oversees the White House grounds. For example, when Melania wanted to add a tennis pavilion, the plans were approved by it. A president can't just burn it down because he wants to. He doesn't own the house.
English
@the3rdestate_cl @ChrisDJackson What do you base your rule on?
Because the Executive absolutely makes decisions about federal property, every hour of every day. The only permission he needs is when he wants to spend extra tax dollars.
English
@PhilsRazor @ChrisDJackson right, but they can't just make changes to federal property without the approval of Congress...if not, what keeps trump from tearing the entire white house down...it's stupid to think POTUS can do whatever he wants if it's private money...cl
English
@alwaysfinding52 @ChrisDJackson "Whataboutism" is how Wokies dismiss precedent & fairness. That leaves "arbitrary fiat".
It's how you maintain the belief that you can do things that your enemies may not.
English
@ChrisDJackson MAGA plays the what aboutism game more than anyone else. It’s what they have to do when they have no facts on their side
English
@the3rdestate_cl @ChrisDJackson Presidents can't spend federal funds without authority from Congress.
They can spend private donations without permission.
That's in the Constitution.
English
@ChrisDJackson I still don't understand what "private funds" has to do with anything...cl
English
@MiscreaRichard @PramilaJayapal Yup, they make that increasingly clear. On every issue affecting US power & viability, she & her ilk choose the anti-American side.
English
@PhilsRazor @PramilaJayapal But that's her goal. Destroy the US.
English
Why is the United States the only wealthy country in the world where people have to choose between paying rent and going to the doctor?
It's not because we can't afford it. We spend MORE on health care than any other nation on earth – and our people get less in return.
Our system is designed to make insurance executives rich off American suffering.
Medicare for All fixes that. We must deliver.
English
@SenGillibrand It wasn't $400 million in tax dollars.
It was $400 million from 350 million Americans who wanted to be part of giving us a big-country's ballroom so we didn't have to host foreign leaders IN A TENT anymore.
IN-A-TENT, you clowns.
The ballroom costs taxpayers NOTHING.
English
While Americans are having to choose between paying for groceries or gas, struggling to find jobs, pay rent, or access health care, Trump was willing to spend $400 million on his vanity project: a White House ballroom.
A federal judge just blocked it.
The American people have had enough.
MeidasTouch@MeidasTouch
BREAKING: A federal judge has ordered the Trump administration to halt construction of a $400M White House ballroom, ruling the project cannot move forward unless Congress approves it.
English
@bradlander @ewarren It will never, ever be limited to "the very rich". Just " the top 1%".
That's what we were promised in 1913, w federal income tax.
You paying federal income taxes? You feel "very rich"?
So on top of it being theft, it will be applied to the middle class inside of 10 years, tops.
English
Since @ewarren first proposed her 2-cent wealth tax in 2020, the same proposal would generate twice as much money – because the obscene wealth of billionaires has doubled over the past six years.
Instituting a wealth tax is an urgent national priority. It's how we can fund healthcare, housing, college, and childcare. I'll proudly fight in the congressional trenches alongside Senator Warren to get this done.
David Dayen@ddayen
A new bill to tax the rich's wealth isn't that interesting. Here's what is: the same bill was introduced 5 years ago, & since then the revenue estimate has *doubled*. Yes, billionaires have 2x much money as they did at the beginning of the 2020s. prospect.org/2026/03/27/bil…
English
@IlliniJdMd @RayRiehle @NickKristof The Norks don't have a global network of homicidal True Believers who could turn Manhattan into a glowing crater without the world allowing us to nuke Pyonyang back.
English
@RayRiehle @NickKristof North Korea has them and nobody is crazier than them.
English
Imagine if instead of spending $1.3 million/minute on war in Iran, we spent this on people. With 3 days of war, we could eliminate the worst form of global hunger, saving 1.5m kids' lives. With less than 3 weeks worth, we could offer national pre-K or college for all Americans.
AF Post@AFpost
State Sec. Rubio: “Imagine if instead of spending billions on weapons, Iran spent that money on its people. They’d have a much different country.” Follow: @AFpost
English
@NickKristof Watch a real President who refuses to ignore the existential horror of Iran making atom bombs & slipping them to the same loons who bomb marathons & Twin Towers & concerts & our military people.
Obama's "deal" let Iran have A-bombs after 10 years. How about, "never".
English