When I saw the Axios headline “Senate Democrats put Trump’s D.C. makeover on notice,” I assumed they were talking about what they would do if they took control of the upper house after the midterms. But no.

Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) plans to force a Senate vote next week on two new resolutions aimed at preventing President Trump from demolishing the Kennedy Center or building his proposed triumphal arch near Arlington National Cemetery.

Why it matters: Senate Democrats are putting Republicans on notice that they’re prepared to use every available legislative means, including the appropriations process later this year, to stymie Trump’s efforts to erect or erase memorials in the D.C. area.

Driving the news: Merkley will introduce his two bills when the Senate returns next week and then seek unanimous consent to consider them at the first opportunity. That’s likely to fail, but Democrats will have the procedural upper hand at the end of the year in the appropriations process, making individual votes more likely. Merkley has an important ally in Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), who is cosponsoring Merkley’s measure designed to protect the Kennedy Center. Both are on the Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior, Environment and Related Agencies.

Theoretically, of course, the appropriations process would be over, given that the fiscal year ends in five days. But, naturally, we’re on a continuing resolution through December 11.

There is some recent precedent for Democrats using their leverage in this manner:

Merkley’s Kennedy Center measure is written broadly to prohibit the demolition of any presidential memorial designated by Congress, extending its protections to the Lincoln and Jefferson memorials.

• “A memorial to honor a President of the United States designated by an Act of Congress may not be demolished unless authorized by an Act of Congress,” the measure reads.
• It defines “demolish” as “the intentional razing, destroying, or wrecking of an entire building or structure or a substantial portion of a building or structure.”
• Merkley’s measure targeting Trump’s planned arch is more specific. It would prohibit the use of federal funds “for the planning and construction of any structure or monument at Memorial Circle at Columbia Island/Lady Bird Johnson Park.”

In James Madison’s world, this would pass overwhelmingly. Not only should there be broad consensus that a President—let alone one known to act on a whim, creating a fait accompli—should not have the authority to raze national monuments on his own, but Senators should naturally jealously safeguard their institutional powers. Alas, we do not live in that world.

We do, however, live in one in which most Senate actions require a 60-vote supermajority, which theoretically gives Democrats significant leverage here.

Of course, Trump could just veto the bill. Or sign the law and ignore it, using the near-plenary authority over the executive branch the Supreme Court has accorded him, and just do what he wants.

Democrats and conservative groups have so far largely relied on the courts to thwart Trump’s plans for the Kennedy Center. Last week, a federal judge ordered Trump officials to provide 30 days’ written notice before making changes to the Kennedy Center, “including but not limited to any demolition” of the main building. Trump’s plans for the 250-foot arch are also being litigated. A veterans-led coalition is seeking to block construction, arguing that the project requires congressional authorization.

With some relatively minor exceptions, the administration has thus far bowed to court orders. It has helped that the Supreme Court has tended to side with him. My strong suspicion is that there are not five votes there to allow tearing down the Kennedy Center or building an unfunded arch. I have, alas, been wrong before.

All of which just goes to illustrate that our system does not work anything at all like the way it’s taught in civics classes or the old Schoolhouse Rock cartoons. Because the President is a unitary actor and Congress is largely dysfunctional, the latter is almost always on the back foot, reacting to the executive rather than the executive carrying out laws passed by the legislature. A President unconstrained by norms has an incredible amount of latitude. They can knock down half of the White House before anyone knows they were even considering such a thing. Or, I don’t know, start a war in the Middle East that roils the global economy.

The courts often refuse to grant standing to parties challenging to parties challenging presidential action and move slowly when they do. And, of course, there are three layers of federal courts to weave through. The highest of which is enormously deferential to this particular President.