THE PRESIDENT'S TROJAN AIRPLANE

 

Article I § 9 of the US Constitution Provides: “No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.” It is commonly called The Foreign Emoluments Clause.

The Foreign Emoluments Clause is a provision in Article I, Section 9, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution that prohibits the federal government from granting titles of nobility, and restricts federal officials from receiving gifts, emoluments, offices or titles from foreign states and monarchies without the consent of the United States Congress. Also known as the Titles of Nobility Clause, it was designed to shield the U.S. federal officeholders against so-called "corrupting foreign influences". The clause is reinforced by the corresponding prohibition on state titles of nobility in Article I, Section 10, and more generally by the Republican Guarantee Clause in Article IV, Section 4.

The prohibition against officers receiving a present or emolument is essentially an antibribery rule to prevent influence by a foreign power. At the Virginia Ratifying Convention, Edmund Randolph, a delegate to the Constitutional Convention, identified the Clause as a key "provision against the danger ... of the president receiving emoluments from foreign powers."

The history of public officers receiving gifts from foreign countries is as follows: Benjamin Franklin was given a golden snuffbox by the King of France and got permission to keep it from the Continental Congress. George Washington received a painting of the Bastille and a key to it from the Marquis de Lafayette and a painting of Louis XIV and apparently didn’t get permission to keep the gifts. After Washington, presidents have traditionally sought permission from Congress to keep gifts. Absent permission, the President will deposit the object with the Department of State. For example, Andrew Jackson sought permission from Congress to keep a gold medal presented by Simón Bolívar; Congress refused to grant consent, and so Jackson deposited the medal with the Department of State. Martin Van Buren and John Tyler received gifts from the Imam of Muscat, for which they received congressional authorization either to transfer them to the United States Government or to auction them with proceeds vesting to the United States Treasury. None of these gifts had tremendous monetary value.

Trump accused Biden of making money off his presidency by having gifts funneled to his son Hunter Jr. Maybe it happened, maybe it didn’t. Whether he did or didn’t, that’s history. What Trump is doing now is current events.

From the outset, authorities have argued that Trump’s businesses are profiting off of his foreign investments because of his presidency, and that violates the Emoluments Clause. Others have argued that since George Washington kept two paintings and a key, Trump is doing nothing wrong.

Now Trump wants to take a $400,000,000 airplane from Qatar to use as Air Force One. The current Air Force One is getting old, and they’re working on a new one, but it won’t be ready for two years. Trump wants to use the luxury airplane as Air Force One and keep it after he leaves office by putting it in the property of his Presidential Library. This would dwarf all other foreign emoluments previously approved by Congress. I could be wrong, but it appears to me that Trump is getting rich(er) off of a questionable gift from a foreign country.

What would be the mechanics of taking such a Trojan Horse, I mean gift? First, the plane would have to be taken apart to remove all clandestine electronic listening devices and spyware and then put back together. Next it would have to be fitted with all the special equipment necessary to the special mission of Air Force One. All this would be both expensive and time consuming, and it may well be that the fitting out would take years. It may not be ready until Boeing has finished building the new Air Force One. And under the terms of the gift, they’d have to build it anyway, because Trump is going to keep his palatial plane after he leaves office.

This stinks to high heaven. It may not be bribery, but it certainly looks like it. Congress should tell Trump, “No! You cannot have the airplane!” He’s not going to ask permission, but that doesn’t prevent Congress from forbidding the gift. 

REOPEN ALCATRAZ?

Reopen Alcatraz? It was closed down on March 21, 1963, by Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy Sr. He closed it because it was too expensive to operate, too expensive to maintain, and it needed massively expensive renovations. It cost 3 times as much to house a prisoner there than it did in other Federal Prisons. It has been closed for 62 years, and it has not gotten any better in that time. It could fairly be characterized as a ruin. In the 1970’s it became a national park, and it is visited by approximately 1,000,000 people per year. Why Did Alcatraz Close Down? | Gray Line of San Francisco. 

If it was expensive to operate 62 years ago, it certainly will be even more expensive to operate today. If it was too expensive to maintain 62 years ago, it will be even more expensive to maintain today. If it was too expensive to renovate 62 years ago, it will be even more expensive to renovate today. But it’s a supermax facility, isn’t it? It is ideal for the worst of the worst criminals, isn’t it? What was passed for a supermax prison 62 years ago doesn’t quite cut the mustard for supermaxes, or even maximum-security prisons, today. The Feds already have a supermax: USP Florence ADMAX in Colorado. It would be a darn sight cheaper to expand USP Florence ADMAX than it would to resuscitate Alcatraz. I have been in some rough maximum security Federal Prisons (as a visitor), and they exceed Alcatraz as the day exceeds the night. There is no need to reopen Alcatraz. It will be a huge money pit, the prisoners there will not be as securely encased as they will in more modern maximum security Federal Prisons, and the officers guarding them will not be as safe as in more modern maximum security Federal Prisons. 

The only reason I can think of for opening Alcatraz is so that the Administration can say, “See how tough we’re being on the worst of the worst criminals?” As a public relations ploy, it might be worthwhile to reopen Alcatraz. As a fiscally responsible act, it would border on lunacy. 

I thought of titling this post "Birdbrain of Alcatraz" as a tribute to both the Burt Lancaster movie "Birdman of Alcatraz" and the monumentally bad judgment it would take to seriously consider reopening the prison, but I'm trying to control my sarcastic streak.