Subject: Re: The Ballroom
In the specific case of the ballroom, I didn't see Trump attempt to follow the law, consulting the appropriate authority in DC regarding changes to public property - such as the White House. I didn't see him run design plans by anyone of authority. I didn't see him ask permission to demolish a publicly owned structure - the East Wing. I didn't see him consider the pros and cons for this ballroom and provide anything other than his typical lying bluster of "people are saying".

Are there processes he didn't follow? From what I've been able to gather, the White House is exempt from a lot of the reviews that would normally apply. He doesn't need permission to demolish the East Wing, as far as I can tell. There aren't a lot of decision-makers that are superior to the President - most of his decisions aren't required to be "run by anyone" - and this appears to be one of them. For most actions of the Federal Government, the President is the person who gives permission for actions to be taken - not the person who asks permission. He's the one that has been chosen, democratically elected, to be the one who ultimately makes most of the calls that the federal government makes. Absent a very clear law to the contrary, it's a little upside down to suggest that the President needs to get permission or approval from someone below him in the Executive on how federal authority is to be executed.

Similarly, I haven't seen any compelling argument that he's violating the Anti-Deficiency Act. That act prohibits spending federal funds without appropriation - but if the funds being spent aren't federal funds, but private funds, then the Act would not appear to apply.

The idea that the President should have gone to someone else to get permission to make a purely executive decision isn't very democratic (small d). And in some ways, it's kind of ridiculous. The President is in charge of the federal government, including the buildings of the federal government. He's in charge of the Executive, and he's in charge of every other person (with few exceptions) that works for the Executive. While it would certainly be wise for the President to consult with people before making decision, ultimately nearly all the decisions of the Federal Government (including whether to tear down a building) are his to make - or made by people who listen to his instructions.

This is one of the weaker planks of the Democratic argument that they're the one defending democracy - because it's generally anti-democratic to subject the decisions of the democratically-elected head of government to purview of unelected officials. There's a place for anti-democratic measures (the Constitution is anti-democratic, as is judicial review). But arguing that someone other than the President should have had review power over a decision to be made by the Executive is not a pro-democratic argument. The President is in charge of all of the parts of the government that aren't legislative or judicial - so if Congress hasn't itself made a decision about what happens to a federal building, it's up to the President to decide.