Trump ignores Constitutional and ethical issues by accepting $400 million version of Air Force One from Qatar
Article One, Section Nine of the U.S. Constitution provides that “no person holding any office … 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 seems pretty clear that President Trump’s plan to accept the gift of a Boeing 747-8 jumbo jet (a present day version is seen above) from the royal family of Qatar, which has been described as a “palace in the sky,” would violate that language.
But is Trump still obligated to obey the language of the Constitution? He was asked that question recently in a different context, as his administration continues to resist the unanimous order of the U.S. Supreme Court that they must “facilitate” the return of Kilmer Abrego Garcia from the El Salvador prison to which he was sent with absolutely no due process of law. Startlingly, Trump declined to acknowledge that he must obey the Constitution, instead equivocating and saying that he has attorneys on whom he relies for such weighty questions.
One of those attorneys would presumably be our new attorney general, Pam Bondi, who has functioned so far as an obedient sycophant for Trump.
Apparently the fact that Trump took an oath to uphold the Constitution when he was inaugurated in January is no more important than our routine nudge that “I accept” conditions that we have not bothered to read, on a keypad, in the midst of a purchase.
We have been told that the jumbo jet will function as Air Force One for the remainder of Trump’s presidential term, after which it will be the property of his presidential library, meaning that it will be available for his personal use when he is a former president. It has been pointed out that Qatar’s royal family supports Hamas in their war against Israel, which is still a U.S. ally, for better or worse.
There are logistical concerns about accepting this lavish gift. The airplane would have to be stripped down to its skeleton, to insure that it is safe and that it has not been electronically bugged. That entails significant costs, meaning that the jumbo jet would actually not be “free” to the American taxpayers.
Perhaps Congress could weigh in on the importance of obeying the language of our Constitution and resisting the temptation to accept this gift, for which the Qatari government would certainly expect considerable favors in return.
Four Democratic senators (Chris Murphy of Connecticut, Brian Schatz of Hawaii, Chris Coons of Delaware and Cory Booker of New Jersey) are demanding a vote on the matter. Schatz has been outspoken about the constitutional and ethical implications: “You don’t need a law degree to know that Trump accepting a $400 million luxury plane from a foreign government is wildly corrupt.”
Significantly, there are Republicans in Washington who share at least some of these concerns. Sen. Rick Scott of Florida has asserted that “I’m not flying on a Qatari plane. They support Hamas. I don’t know how you make it safe.”
Our own senator, John Thune, who is supposed to support Trump’s craziest and most corrupt actions since he is majority leader, has taken a somewhat equivocal stance.
“I understand (Trump’s) frustration. They’re way behind schedule on delivering the next Air Force One,” he said. “Whether or not this is the right solution or not, I don’t know.”
Perhaps Thune wishes that the whole controversy would go away. When Boeing is unable to deliver a luxury jet to the president on schedule, obeying the language of the Constitution is something of a burden.
The authors of that Constitution had only seen birds and bats in flight. But the offer of an extravagant gift from an absolute monarchy, whose global interests usually do not align with ours, would appear to be the exact corrupting influence they sought to avoid when they wrote the Constitution’s Emoluments Clause.
Jay Davis of Rapid City is a retired lawyer and a regular contributor to The South Dakota Standard.
Photo: public domain, wikimedia commons
The South Dakota Standard is offered freely and is supported by our readers. We have no political or commercial sponsorship. If you'd like to help us continue our mission to advance independent political and social commentary, you can do so by clicking on the "Donate" button that's on the sidebar to your right.
