Yes, but the Supreme Court ruled that historical preservation groups don’t have standing to sue when the president illegally tears down a building and builds whatever he wants on top of the ruins without congressional approval or appropriation, and that congress may have standing to sue, but that means no lawsuits would stop a president as long as said president had a compliant, agreeable, or inept congress in power, you’d have to wait until an opposing party or congress gets elected to stop illegal acts by the president… which seems… not what the founders intended or set up.
What the founders set up 250 years ago is irrelevant to the present. They would’ve never seen this coming, and they were too concerned with the property rights of male, slave-owning property owners.
Yes, but the Supreme Court ruled that historical preservation groups don’t have standing to sue when the president illegally tears down a building and builds whatever he wants on top of the ruins without congressional approval or appropriation, and that congress may have standing to sue, but that means no lawsuits would stop a president as long as said president had a compliant, agreeable, or inept congress in power, you’d have to wait until an opposing party or congress gets elected to stop illegal acts by the president… which seems… not what the founders intended or set up.
What the founders set up 250 years ago is irrelevant to the present. They would’ve never seen this coming, and they were too concerned with the property rights of male, slave-owning property owners.