By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Senator Chris Van Hollen has publicly denounced the Kennedy Center’s renaming to include President Donald Trump, calling the move a “desecration” and vowing to reverse it. The senator intends to introduce an amendment to the interior appropriations bill when Congress reconvenes, aiming to remove Trump’s name from the center. This follows the addition of Trump’s name by the Kennedy Center’s board, sparking criticism from Democrats and Kennedy family members. Critics argue the board’s action is unauthorized and that Trump doesn’t support the arts.
Read the original article here
Senator Vows Amendment to Remove Trump’s Name From Kennedy Center
It seems there’s a real buzz about the Kennedy Center, and it’s not exactly about the performances. The core issue here is the rather bold move to put Trump’s name on it in the first place, and, well, many people are not thrilled. The general consensus appears to be that the name change was done improperly, maybe even illegally. A lot of the reaction boils down to “Why do we need an amendment?” when the initial action shouldn’t have happened to begin with.
The question of legality is central. A lot of folks are arguing that the name change was a violation of existing rules and procedures. If it was already done illegally, why are we even bothering with another piece of legislation? It’s like trying to fix something that was never built correctly in the first place. Some are suggesting a much simpler solution: just take the name down. No need for complicated legal maneuvers, just get it done. It’s a quick, decisive act, which is what many feel is needed.
The proposed amendment isn’t just about the name; it’s about a larger principle. Many see it as a fight against the perception of impunity and a need for accountability. There’s a lot of talk about how this move is just the beginning, and that a future Democrat president could easily and justifiably rename Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport as a measure to demonstrate that they are capable of undoing such moves. The sentiment is clear: if the law wasn’t followed to add the name, then let’s make sure it’s followed to remove it.
The reactions also touch on the symbolism of memorials and who gets to be memorialized. There are a number of tongue-in-cheek comparisons, like imagining the “Donald J. Trump and Abraham Lincoln Memorial.” It highlights the belief that putting a name on a memorial is a serious matter, and not something to be taken lightly or used for self-aggrandizement. The repeated point is that the Kennedy Center is a place for the arts, a memorial to a past president, and its current situation has no basis to be related to the former president.
Beyond the legal and symbolic issues, there’s a strong undercurrent of frustration with what many perceive as a pattern of disregard for rules and norms. This situation is seen as part of a larger picture, where existing laws are ignored or circumvented. Some people are wondering why this isn’t being treated as vandalism and demanding that the current administration act to address it. A lot of people are pointing out that this is not a new legal process that has to be done, as the original law that funds the memorial doesn’t include funding for his name to be included.
The emotional tone of this topic comes into the discussions as well. Some people express that Trump’s actions are motivated by fear and desperation, and that he is trying to cement his legacy before his time runs out. The conversation also points out that Trump has no respect for the institutions and legacies of this country. The consensus is that Trump’s supporters are enabling his actions and the current Kennedy Center administration is complicit in his poor behavior.
The core of the matter: it seems people are asking why the legal process isn’t being followed. Why do we need an amendment when the initial action wasn’t legal in the first place? Some people would even suggest that we need to remove all of his names from monuments across the country. It appears that people are looking for clear enforcement of the law and a firm rebuke of what they see as a violation of the rules. The idea of an amendment is seen as necessary, but the preference is for a simple, direct solution: remove the name, and move on.