What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[Habbaku]

Dementia. Probably doesnt help that he eats shit and never exercises body or brain. I wonder if he read a book in the last 30 years.

No time to read when he's so busy writing.

[The Larch]

Dementia. Probably doesnt help that he eats shit and never exercises body or brain. I wonder if he read a book in the last 30 years.

Apparently the Queen gave him as a state present a 1st edition copy of Churchill's WWII memoir, total trolling or total waste? 

[Malthus]

Dementia. Probably doesnt help that he eats shit and never exercises body or brain. I wonder if he read a book in the last 30 years.

Apparently the Queen gave him as a state present a 1st edition copy of Churchill's WWII memoir, total trolling or total waste? 

I'd say total troll. 

The fellow is notorious for never reading more than a page even on topics of vital immediate importance to him, so she could be sure he'll never actually read an enormously lengthy memoir on a historical topic. Which is no doubt the point - to Trump, this gift  is completely worthless in a way that, I assume deliberately, highlights his boorish semi-illiteracy. Though no doubt he just sees it as a valuable possession. (Which is sort of correct, if a first edition is valuable, people won't read it - just keep it as a collectable)

It's not a total waste, because presumably it will be placed in some sort of library and preserved for others in the future.

[The Larch]

Dementia. Probably doesnt help that he eats shit and never exercises body or brain. I wonder if he read a book in the last 30 years.

Apparently the Queen gave him as a state present a 1st edition copy of Churchill's WWII memoir, total trolling or total waste? 

I'd say total troll. 

The fellow is notorious for never reading more than a page even on topics of vital immediate importance to him, so she could be sure he'll never actually read an enormously lengthy memoir on a historical topic. Which is no doubt the point - to Trump, this gift  is completely worthless in a way that, I assume deliberately, highlights his boorish semi-illiteracy. Though no doubt he just sees it as a valuable possession. (Which is sort of correct, if a first edition is valuable, people won't read it - just keep it as a collectable)

It's not a total waste, because presumably it will be placed in some sort of library and preserved for others in the future.

State presents are not kept by the presidents, AFAIK, so yes, it will be preserved by the White House. Don't know if it'll be exhibited in some way.

[Syt]

State presents are not kept by the presidents, AFAIK

This president might have a different view of that.

[The Minsky Moment]

In 2015, a judge from the the District Court of DC (appointed by GWB) held the Republican controlled House of Representatives had standing to sue the Obama administration for spending money on cost offsets for Obamacare absent a current appropriation from Congress.  Although the Obama administration was not thrilled by the decision, the reasoning was sound.  Constitutionally, all appropriations must originate in the House. Thus, an unauthorized appropriation by the Executive, if proven, would directly frustrate the House's exclusive rights. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12868698226319105986&q=house+v.+burwell&hl=en&as_sdt=6,31&as_vis=1

Yesterday, another judge in the same Court rendered a decision on the same issue - whether the House had standing to challenge an unauthorized expenditure - in this case Trump's bogus use of "emergency" military powers to construct his border wall.  The only differences between the cases are that now Democrats control the House, Republicans control the White House, and the judge is a Trump appointee. https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2019cv0969-54

Judge McFadden denied standing to the House and dismissed the case.  He simply declined to apply the prior ruling.  Some of the reasoning is patently absurd - for example, he argued that the House "retains the institutional tools necessary to remedy any harm" because they could "with a two-thirds majority, override the President's veto of the resolution voiding the National Emergency Declaration."  That upends the entire constitutional design - that the People's money cannot be spent unless a majority of the House consents and authorizes it.  Under Judge McFadden's new and unimproved constitution, only one-third of the House is needed to appropriate, as long as the President leads the way.

I really want to be able to say that this decision was driven by a factor other than carrying water for the President who appointed him.  But I'm struggling on this one.

[The Larch]

State presents are not kept by the presidents, AFAIK

This president might have a different view of that.

I digged a bit and this is what I found:

What happens when a gift is given to the United States President?

Throughout history presidents of the United States of America have been given some pretty unique gifts from their fellow world leaders. Gifts are given as a sign of respect and reflection of the relationship between the gifting country and United States. You may find it unethical that the president would get to keep such lavish gifts, but in reality they can only keep them at a cost.

According to a document from the Congressional Research Service gifts from foreign governments aren't actually property of the president. The document states: 'A tangible gift of more than minimal value accepted for reasons of protocol or courtesy may not be kept as a personal gift, however, but is considered accepted on behalf of and property of the United States, and in the case of such a gift for the President or the President's family, is handled by the National Archives and Records Administration'.

After a gift has been accepted it is stored in the National Archives while they are in-office. Once their term has ended the collection moves to a Presidential Library. Occasionally a president may not want to part with a particular item and they are given the opportunity to purchase it back at market value.

I don't think Trump will want to keep the book. The thought of a Donald Trump Presidential Library both intrigues and horrifies me, though. 

[Valmy]

It will be a section of one of his hotels.

[Tonitrus]

It will be a section of one of his hotels.

You mean the future Trump International Presidential Hotel Library.

[Admiral Yi]

In 2015, a judge from the the District Court of DC (appointed by GWB) held the Republican controlled House of Representatives had standing to sue the Obama administration for spending money on cost offsets for Obamacare absent a current appropriation from Congress.  Although the Obama administration was not thrilled by the decision, the reasoning was sound.  Constitutionally, all appropriations must originate in the House. Thus, an unauthorized appropriation by the Executive, if proven, would directly frustrate the House's exclusive rights. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12868698226319105986&q=house+v.+burwell&hl=en&as_sdt=6,31&as_vis=1

Yesterday, another judge in the same Court rendered a decision on the same issue - whether the House had standing to challenge an unauthorized expenditure - in this case Trump's bogus use of "emergency" military powers to construct his border wall.  The only differences between the cases are that now Democrats control the House, Republicans control the White House, and the judge is a Trump appointee. https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2019cv0969-54

Judge McFadden denied standing to the House and dismissed the case.  He simply declined to apply the prior ruling.  Some of the reasoning is patently absurd - for example, he argued that the House "retains the institutional tools necessary to remedy any harm" because they could "with a two-thirds majority, override the President's veto of the resolution voiding the National Emergency Declaration."  That upends the entire constitutional design - that the People's money cannot be spent unless a majority of the House consents and authorizes it.  Under Judge McFadden's new and unimproved constitution, only one-third of the House is needed to appropriate, as long as the President leads the way.

I really want to be able to say that this decision was driven by a factor other than carrying water for the President who appointed him.  But I'm struggling on this one.

Unless Obama was denied use of a legislatively created emergency power, it seems to me you're comparing apples and oranges.

[The Minsky Moment]

Unless Obama was denied use of a legislatively created emergency power, it seems to me you're comparing apples and oranges.

No you are addressing the merits of the dispute - i.e. whether there was in fact legislative authorization.  The same issue was contested in the Obama case - i.e. Obama's people argued that Congress had made the legislative authorization to spend the money.  The laws were admittedly different and its possible the reasoning or the outcome could be different if the cases proceeded that far.

But the question before both courts was not whether the House had a good complaint.  Neither court addressed the merits.  Rather the legal question was whether - assuming the House was correct and the President lacked proper authorization in both cases - the House had standing to sue in court in the first place.  On that standing question, it is a pure apples to apples question - does the House of Representatives have standing to sue for an alleged unauthorized appropriation of funds? 

[Savonarola]

State presents are not kept by the presidents, AFAIK

This president might have a different view of that.

I digged a bit and this is what I found:

What happens when a gift is given to the United States President?

Throughout history presidents of the United States of America have been given some pretty unique gifts from their fellow world leaders. Gifts are given as a sign of respect and reflection of the relationship between the gifting country and United States. You may find it unethical that the president would get to keep such lavish gifts, but in reality they can only keep them at a cost.

According to a document from the Congressional Research Service gifts from foreign governments aren't actually property of the president. The document states: 'A tangible gift of more than minimal value accepted for reasons of protocol or courtesy may not be kept as a personal gift, however, but is considered accepted on behalf of and property of the United States, and in the case of such a gift for the President or the President's family, is handled by the National Archives and Records Administration'.

After a gift has been accepted it is stored in the National Archives while they are in-office. Once their term has ended the collection moves to a Presidential Library. Occasionally a president may not want to part with a particular item and they are given the opportunity to purchase it back at market value.

I don't think Trump will want to keep the book. The thought of a Donald Trump Presidential Library both intrigues and horrifies me, though. 

I believe these rules were set up because Jackie Kennedy kept some of the state gifts given to her husband.

The archives of presidential libraries are only open to scholars.  I've been to the Gerald Ford Library (located on the campus of the University of Michigan); the layperson can only go into the vestibule.  A couple of Ford's state gifts are located there (including a Declaration of Independence written in Macaroni; thank you Italy) but not much else.  Presidential Museums, on the other hand, are open to the general public.  A Donald Trump Presidential Museum seems both intriguing and horrifying (not in the least because there's a possibility that it will be located in Florida.)

[celedhring]

I imagine The Donald J. Trump Presidential Library as containing picture books and thousands of unsold copies of "The Art of the Deal".

[Syt]

Also, TIME magazines with photoshopped covers.

[Syt]