Trump Changes To History At National Parks Must Be Undone Judge Rules

[Concerned American]

America is ruled by Judges. How many presidents do we now have?

Racist judges can't even leave their bigotry out of their rulings--'rewrite the nations history with a white out pen?' What would happen if an opposite statement was made by a white judge?

 

[meaner gene]

I think that one thing the blob's "administrations" have shown us is that we need to have a whole separate court system set up to simply undo over-reaches by the Executive if Congress isn't going to do their duty and be the people's branch.

Periodic changes to the White House (notice I didn't say improvements) can be done by the President requesting them through Congress and as long as it's within reason...they almost always get approved. Putting greens, basketball courts, the UFC cockfighting cage or whatever it is.

But I think even those on the right would agree that there is no calculus in the world that approves an entire wing of the building being bulldozed to the ground before the legal questions have been asked and answered, before the funding has been appropriated and voted on, etc...

So yeah, the part of our constitution that has been historically silent needs to be given a voice. And since Congress has revealed itself to be largely either a massive roadblock or a rubber stamp of approval for the executive, the courts need a rapid reaction docket that can answer the legal challenges in a week or less lets say.

While what you propose sounds good on paper, unfortunately it violates the piece of paper called the US Constitution.

Article 3 puts the judicial power into the Supreme Court, and courts inferior to it.
It also mandates that that power is limited to actual "cases, and controversies".

Which means that a federal court can't give an "advisory opinion" about something that is in the works, but not yet implemented.

 

[Robert W]

Yet another cryptic mentally challenged ramble that you probably think is more interesting than it is...

Get some sleep goober.

Why do you want to play the insult game?

 

[candycorn]

While what you propose sounds good on paper, unfortunately it violates the piece of paper called the US Constitution.

Article 3 puts the judicial power into the Supreme Court, and courts inferior to it.
It also mandates that that power is limited to actual "cases, and controversies".

Which means that a federal court can't give an "advisory opinion" about something that is in the works, but not yet implemented.

Correct me if I'm wrong (and I probably am)....

Well, we have federal courts right? We have 13 appellate courts right? We have immigration courts.
As far as I know, none of those are spelled out specifically in the Constitution.

It would seem that we could have a court of executive review (just to give it a title)....where they do nothing but review actions by the executive branch. I have no idea who makes a court--it would seem like a job for Congress and given the political football that every single outrageous thing thing has become, I don't see why they wouldn't welcome it. If for no other reason...it prevents them from having to take a stand on anything which i'm sure they love.
For example....

Lets say the next President wants to bulldoze that stupid arch that the blob wants to build. Apparently, if the blob's administration is any indication, the only thing stopping the next President from doing so is if they can't find the keys to the bulldozer. Am I missing something? Sure someone will file suit to stop it but as we've seen with the KC, the ruling comes long after the dust is settled and the rental on the bulldozer is finished. There should be a court to stop it with a panel of federal judges who can shitcan any crazy move a President wants to make.

 

[Samofvt]

Correct me if I'm wrong (and I probably am)....

Well, we have federal courts right? We have 13 appellate courts right? We have immigration courts.
As far as I know, none of those are spelled out specifically in the Constitution.

It would seem that we could have a court of executive review (just to give it a title)....where they do nothing but review actions by the executive branch. I have no idea who makes a court--it would seem like a job for Congress and given the political football that every single outrageous thing thing has become, I don't see why they wouldn't welcome it. If for no other reason...it prevents them from having to take a stand on anything which i'm sure they love.
For example....

Lets say the next President wants to bulldoze that stupid arch that the blob wants to build. Apparently, if the blob's administration is any indication, the only thing stopping the next President from doing so is if they can't find the keys to the bulldozer. Am I missing something? Sure someone will file suit to stop it but as we've seen with the KC, the ruling comes long after the dust is settled and the rental on the bulldozer is finished. There should be a court to stop it with a panel of federal judges who can shitcan any crazy move a President wants to make.

So, you are saying, you want to grow the federal government more, and put more power in the hands of non-elected, politically appointed comrades?

let me go outside and laugh that off before I come back and explain the facts of life to you...and in the process explain yes, you are "missing something"

 

[Lockback]

President Trump's effort to rewrite the past at the country's museums, parks and landmarks was struck down on Friday, with a federal judge calling for the administration to restore changes already made at locations nationwide.

The preliminary injunction issued by U.S. District Judge Angel Kelley in Massachusetts also orders a pause on any additional changes, writing that the plaintiffs have shown these efforts are meant "to rewrite the Nation's history with a white-out pen."

Trump's changes to history at national parks must be undone, judge rules

President Trump issued an executive order in March 2025 ordering national parks to not display elements that "inappropriately disparage Americans past or living."

www.cbsnews.com

MAGA is really going to like all of the new additions coming in 2029.

View attachment 1268894

In other words, "Trump must not wipe out years of Far Left propaganda."

 

[candycorn]

So, you are saying, you want to grow the federal government more, and put more power in the hands of non-elected, politically appointed comrades?

Since the elected officials are either being a "yes" or "no" instead of a "lets talk about it" as it should be....yes.

I have not said anything about "comrades". Sometimes the judges would agree with my view, sometimes they won't.

I'm fine with that as along as someone is signing off on the whole thing.

let me go outside and laugh that off before I come back and explain the facts of life to you...and in the process explain yes, you are "missing something"

If ignorance is bliss, you must be orgasmic.

 

[meaner gene]

Correct me if I'm wrong (and I probably am)....

Well, we have federal courts right? We have 13 appellate courts right? We have immigration courts.
As far as I know, none of those are spelled out specifically in the Constitution.

It would seem that we could have a court of executive review (just to give it a title)....where they do nothing but review actions by the executive branch. I have no idea who makes a court--it would seem like a job for Congress

Article III
Section 1
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.

Section 2
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution,

to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;—between a State and Citizens of another State,—between Citizens of different States,—

This is where they get the requirement of "standing" from.
Where it must be a "case" meaning someone suffered actual harm.

So executive actions an't be litigated until AFTER they go into effect, and have an effect that does HARM to someone, which allows those harmed to sue in federal court.

 

[meaner gene]

Lets say the next President wants to bulldoze that stupid arch that the blob wants to build. Apparently, if the blob's administration is any indication, the only thing stopping the next President from doing so is if they can't find the keys to the bulldozer. Am I missing something? Sure someone will file suit to stop it but as we've seen with the KC, the ruling comes long after the dust is settled and the rental on the bulldozer is finished. There should be a court to stop it with a panel of federal judges who can shitcan any crazy move a President wants to make.

Actually it depends how a structure came to be. That whatever body had the power to authorize it. Is the one with the power to un-authorize (bulldoze) it.
So if it came about by executive order, like any other executive order, it can be rescinded by the next president.
Anything authorized by congress, can be rescinded by the next congress.

 

[Crepitus]

UFC cockfighting cage or whatever it is.

The Epstein Dome.

 

[candycorn]

Article III
Section 1
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.

Okay so congress would have to establish it.

Section 2
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution,

to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;—between a State and Citizens of another State,—between Citizens of different States,—

This is where they get the requirement of "standing" from.
Where it must be a "case" meaning someone suffered actual harm.

So executive actions an't be litigated until AFTER they go into effect, and have an effect that does HARM to someone, which allows those harmed to sue in federal court.

Okay.

 

[Robert W]

Lets say the next President wants to bulldoze that stupid arch that the blob wants to build. Apparently, if the blob's administration is any indication, the only thing stopping the next President from doing so is if they can't find the keys to the bulldozer. Am I missing something? Sure someone will file suit to stop it but as we've seen with the KC, the ruling comes long after the dust is settled and the rental on the bulldozer is finished. There should be a court to stop it with a panel of federal judges who can shitcan any crazy move a President wants to make.

What is wrong with the proposed arch in your story?

 

[candycorn]

Actually it depends how a structure came to be. That whatever body had the power to authorize it. Is the one with the power to un-authorize (bulldoze) it.
So if it came about by executive order, like any other executive order, it can be rescinded by the next president.
Anything authorized by congress, can be rescinded by the next congress.

Well, that's my point.... Nobody (TTBOMK) gave the blob the ok to destroy a 1/3 of the white house in October 2025. He just did it. And here we are nine months later in limbo.

Seems to me that whomever the President is can just demolish/build whatever they want in DC.

I think there should be some guardrails.

I've said it a few times here. I get lumped in with liberals and I guess I am pretty liberal about some things but at my heart I'm an institutionalist....if there isn't a sincerely pressing need for something to be done by the feds that involves national security or safety of the American people...it should be a group project.

 

[candycorn]

What is wrong with the proposed arch in your story?

What is right with the proposed arch in "your story"?

 

[candycorn]

A win for the good guys.

 

[egp320i]

President Trump's effort to rewrite the past at the country's museums, parks and landmarks was struck down on Friday, with a federal judge calling for the administration to restore changes already made at locations nationwide.

The preliminary injunction issued by U.S. District Judge Angel Kelley in Massachusetts also orders a pause on any additional changes, writing that the plaintiffs have shown these efforts are meant "to rewrite the Nation's history with a white-out pen."

Trump's changes to history at national parks must be undone, judge rules

President Trump issued an executive order in March 2025 ordering national parks to not display elements that "inappropriately disparage Americans past or living."

www.cbsnews.com

MAGA is really going to like all of the new additions coming in 2029.

View attachment 1268894

Again.......how does one judge have the authority over parks exactly?

Trump would NOT be the first......

• Theodore Roosevelt National Park (North Dakota) – This is the only one of the 63 major U.S. National Parks that bears a president's name. It honors his massive legacy in conservation (he protected roughly 230 million acres of public land during his presidency) and preserves the rugged badlands where he lived and ranched in the 1880s.

Other "National Park Service" Presidential Sites​

While Teddy Roosevelt has the only major scenic National Park, the National Park Service (NPS) manages dozens of other official units—like National Historic Sites, National Historical Parks, and National Memorials—dedicated to presidents.

Some of the most notable include:

• Abraham Lincoln Birthplace National Historical Park (Kentucky) – Protects the site of his humble log cabin beginnings.
• Adams National Historical Park (Massachusetts) – Preserves the home of two presidents: John Adams and John Quincy Adams.
• Lyndon B. Johnson National Historical Park (Texas) – Features his birthplace, boyhood home, and the "Texas White House" ranch.
• Jimmy Carter National Historical Park (Georgia) – Includes his childhood farm, residence, and high school in Plains, Georgia.
• George Washington Birthplace National Monument (Virginia) – Commemorates the plantation where America’s first president was born.

There is also Mount Rushmore National Memorial (South Dakota), which features giant carvings of four presidents: George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Theodore Roosevelt, and Abraham Lincoln.

 

[egp320i]

View attachment 1268938
A win for the good guys.

who are the good guys?, it's a freaking name......

good guys, like frauds and perverts? yeah......OK

 

[meaner gene]

Well, that's my point.... Nobody (TTBOMK) gave the blob the ok to destroy a 1/3 of the white house in October 2025. He just did it. And here we are nine months later in limbo.

Seems to me that whomever the President is can just demolish/build whatever they want in DC.

I think there should be some guardrails.

Actually the case of Trump Vs United States, where the supreme court gave the president immunity for all presidential acts, and acts related to the presidency.
When Trump bulldozed the east wing, he did it as the president, and as such has presidential immunity from prosecution (per the supreme court)
So the usual guardrails no longer apply.
And even if a new court is created to rule on the legality of the act. The president can't be held liable.
And anyone who assisted, who can b e held liable to the law. Can be given a presidential pardon. Which is an absolute constitutional power.

 

[Robert W]

What is right with the proposed arch in "your story"?

I have been to the Arlington national Cemetery and also in Arlington VA.
It in my opinion is a magnificent tribute to the United States of America

I have stood on the ground where Lincoln invaded VA with no permission of Congress, so I know presidents can lash out and create wars. Why do you object to the arch?

I recall when Democrats were so busy ripping down monuments. They seem so upset over this monument.

 

[Robert W]

Well, that's my point.... Nobody (TTBOMK) gave the blob the ok to destroy a 1/3 of the white house in October 2025. He just did it. And here we are nine months later in limbo.

Seems to me that whomever the President is can just demolish/build whatever they want in DC.

I think there should be some guardrails.

I've said it a few times here. I get lumped in with liberals and I guess I am pretty liberal about some things but at my heart I'm an institutionalist....if there isn't a sincerely pressing need for something to be done by the feds that involves national security or safety of the American people...it should be a group project.

One wonders when Teddy Roosevelt had the East wing built and later added to by Franklin Roosevelt if there was this gnashing of teeth and dog witted protests?

Is the job of the president to be helpless?

1. Including results for Who had the estwing build white house.
   Do you want results only for Who had the east wing built whitehouse?
2. https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=c64e...YnVpbHQrd2hpdGVob3VzZSZmb3JtPUNTQlJBTkQ&ntb=1
   
   Like
   Dislike
   

   The East Wing was originally built in 1902 under President Theodore Roosevelt, designed by architect Charles Follen McKim, and later expanded in 1942 under President Franklin D. Roosevelt, designed by White House architect Lorenzo Winslow.​

   Original Construction (1902)​

   The first East Wing was constructed during Theodore Roosevelt’s renovation of the White House in 1902. Its purpose was primarily to serve as a formal entrance for visitors and guests attending large social events, providing a circular driveway, a porte-cochère, and a coatroom known as “the hatbox” for guests’ coats and hats. The wing was designed by Charles Follen McKim, a prominent architect of the era, as part of Roosevelt’s broader effort to modernize and expand the White House complex while restoring elements of Thomas Jefferson’s original vision for the east entrance Wikipedia+2.
   
   

   Expansion and Remodeling (1942)​

   In 1942, during Franklin D. Roosevelt’s presidency, the East Wing underwent a significant expansion and remodeling. This project was commissioned to provide additional office space for the growing staff, including the First Lady’s offices, and to conceal the construction of the Presidential Emergency Operations Center (PEOC), an underground bunker for national security purposes. The two-story expansion was designed by White House architect Lorenzo Winslow, integrating Roosevelt’s coatroom into the new structure and creating the White House Family Theater Wikipedia+1.
   
   

   Purpose and Legacy​

   Over time, the East Wing became the administrative hub for the First Lady and her staff, including the Social Secretary, correspondence staff, and other offices. Its design was deliberately modest and sympathetic to the Neoclassical style of the Executive Residence, balancing the West Wing and maintaining the overall composition of the White House complex factually.co+1. The East Wing remained a key functional and ceremonial space until its partial demolition in 2025 to make way for a new privately funded ballroom project Wikipedia+1.
   In summary, the original East Wing was built by Charles Follen McKim under Theodore Roosevelt in 1902, and the major 1942 expansion was designed by Lorenzo Winslow under Franklin D. Roosevelt, reflecting both practical needs and national security considerations.