Latest from Lamar, Notes from the Senate Desk

*Voting for the
United States Constitution*

*"The question is not whether the president
did it, but whether the United States Senate or the American people
should decide what to do about what the president did. I believe that the
Constitution clearly provides that the people should make that
decision in the presidential election that began on Monday in Iowa."*

[image
= [link removed]]
[link 1]

*I spoke about my decision to vote for acquittal on the Senate
floor -- click here [link 2] or on the above image to hear my remarks:
"If this shallow, hurried and wholly partisan impeachment would have
succeeded, it would have ripped the country apart, pouring gasoline on
the fire of cultural divisions that already exist. It would have
created a weapon of perpetual impeachment to be used against future
presidents whenever the House of Representatives is of a different political
party. Our founding documents provide for duly elected presidents who
serve with 'the consent of the governed,' not at the pleasure of the
United States Congress. Let the people decide." *

This week I voted
to acquit the president in the Senate impeachment trial. Throughout the
impeachment process, I worked with other senators to make sure that
we had the right to ask for more documents and witnesses. But there was
no need for more evidence to prove something that I believe had
already been proven and that did not meet the United States Constitution's
high bar for an impeachable offense. There was no need for more
evidence to prove that the president asked Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden
and his son, Hunter; he said this on television on October 3, 2019,
and during his July 25, 2019, telephone call with the president of
Ukraine. There was no need for more evidence to conclude that the president
withheld United States aid, at least in part, to pressure Ukraine to
investigate the Bidens. The House managers had proved this with what
they called a "mountain of overwhelming evidence."

The Constitution
does not give the Senate the power to remove the president from office
and ban him from this year's ballot simply for actions that are
inappropriate. The question then is not whether the president did it, but
whether the United States Senate or the American people should decide
what to do about what he did. I believe that the Constitution clearly
provides that the people should make that decision in the presidential
election that began on Monday in Iowa.

The Senate spent eleven long
days considering this "mountain" of evidence, the arguments of the House
managers and the president's lawyers, their answers to senators'
questions and the House record. Even if the House charges were true, they
do not meet the Constitution's "treason, bribery, or other high crimes
and misdemeanors" standard for an impeachable offense. The framers
believed that there should never, ever be a partisan impeachment. That is
why the Constitution requires a 2/3 vote of the Senate to convict.
Yet not one House Republican voted for these articles of
impeachment.

If this shallow, hurried and wholly partisan impeachment would have
succeeded, it would have ripped the country apart, pouring gasoline on
the fire of cultural divisions that already exist. It would have created
a weapon of perpetual impeachment to be used against future
presidents whenever the House of Representatives is of a different political
party. Our founding documents provide for duly elected presidents who
serve with "the consent of the governed," not at the pleasure of the
United States Congress. Let the people decide.

[image =
[link removed]] [link 3]

*I also
joined Chuck Todd on Meet the Press to discuss my decision, which you can
watch here [link 4].*

A year ago, at the Southeastern Conference
basketball tournament, a friend of 40 years, sitting in front of me turned
to me and said, "I'm very unhappy with you for voting against the
president."

She was referring to my vote against the president's
decision to spend money that Congress hadn't appropriated to build a border
wall. I believe then and now that the United States Constitution gives
to the Congress the exclusive power to appropriate money. This
separation of powers creates checks and balances in our government that
preserves our individual liberty by not allowing in that case the executive
to have too much power.

I replied to my friend "Look, I was not
voting for or against the president. I was voting for the United States
Constitution." Well, she wasn't convinced. Now this past Sunday walking
my dog, Rufus, in Nashville, I was confronted by a neighbor who said
she was angry and crushed by my vote against allowing more witnesses in
the impeachment trial. "The Senate should remove the president for
extortion," she said. I replied to her, "I was not voting for or against
the President. I was voting for the United States Constitution,"
which in my view does not give the Senate the power to remove a president
from his office and from this year's election ballot simply for
actions that are inappropriate. The United States Constitution says a
president may be convicted only for treason, bribery and other high crimes
and misdemeanors. President Trump's actions regarding Ukraine are a far
cry from that.

Plus, I said, "Unlike the Nixon impeachment, when
almost all Republicans voted to initiate an impeachment inquiry, not one
single Republican voted to initiate this impeachment inquiry against
President Trump. The Trump impeachment," I said to her "was a
completely partisan action and the framers of the United States Constitution,
especially James Madison, believed we should never, ever have a
partisan impeachment that would undermine the separation of powers by
allowing the House of Representatives to immobilize the executive branch as
well as the Senate by a perpetual partisan series of impeachments."
Well, she was not convinced.

When our country was created, there never
had been anything quite like it -- a democratic republic with a written
constitution. Perhaps its greatest innovation was the separation of
powers among the presidency, the Supreme Court, and the Congress. The
late Justice Scalia said of this, checks and balances "every tinhorn
dictator in the world today. Every President for life has a Bill of
Rights. What has made us free is our Constitution." What he meant was what
makes the United States different and protects our individual liberty
is the separation of powers and the checks and balances in our
Constitution. The goal of our founders was not to have a king as chief
executive on the one hand or not to have a British style parliament on the
other, which could remove our chief executive or Prime Minister with a
majority or no confidence vote. The principal reason our Constitution
created a United States Senate is so that one body of Congress can
pause and resist the excesses of the executive or popular passions that
can run through the House of Representatives like a freight
train.

The language of the Constitution of course is subject to interpretation.
But on some things, its words are clear. The President cannot spend
money that Congress doesn't appropriate. That's clear. And the Senate
can't remove a President for anything less than treason, bribery, high
crimes and misdemeanors and two thirds of U.S. Senators must agree on,
which requires a bipartisan consensus. We Senators take an oath to
base our decisions on the provisions of our Constitution, which is what
I have endeavored to do during this impeachment proceeding.



*Below
are a few articles regarding the impeachment trial worth
reading:*

**Wall Street Journal: Lamar Alexander's Finest Hour [link 5]**

The
House managers had proved their case to his satisfaction even without
new witnesses, Mr. Alexander added, but "they do not meet the
Constitution's 'treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors'
standard for an impeachable offense." Nebraska Sen. Ben Sasse told reporters
"let me be clear: Lamar speaks for lots and lots of us."

This isn't
an abdication. It's a wise judgment based on what Mr. Trump did and the
rushed, partisan nature of the House impeachment. Mr. Trump was wrong
to ask Ukraine to investigate Joe and Hunter Biden, and wrong to use
U.S. aid as leverage. His call with Ukraine's President was far from
"perfect." It was reckless and self-destructive, as Mr. Trump often
is.

**National Review: Lamar Alexander Gets It Right [link 6]**

In his
statement, Alexander expressed the correct view on the underlying
matter -- one we have been urging Republicans to publicly adopt since
impeachment first got off the ground.

The Tennessee Republican said that
it has been amply established that Donald Trump used a hold on defense
aid to pressure the Ukrainians to undertake the investigations that
he wanted, and that this was, as he mildly put it, inappropriate. But
this misconduct, he argued, doesn't rise to the level of the high
crimes and misdemeanors required to remove a president from office. If the
Senate were to do so anyway, it would further envenom the nation's
partisan divide. Besides, there is a national election looming where the
public itself can decide whether Trump should stay in office or
not.

**American Enterprise Institute: Alexander Got It Right: It Takes More
to Remove a President [link 7]**

Republican Sen. Lamar Alexander's
words reminded me of the struggle my father, John Doar, had as he
considered whether the conduct of President Richard Nixon was so serious
that it should lead the House to impeach him and the Senate to remove
him from office. Dad was in charge of the House Judiciary Committee
staff, which took seven months (between December 1973 and July 1974) to
examine the evidence and consider the question. What he concluded, and
what the House Judiciary Committee by bipartisan majorities also found,
was that Nixon deserved impeachment and removal for a pattern of
conduct over a multi-year period that both obstructed justice and abused
power.

President Trump's conduct toward Ukraine, though inappropriate,
differs significantly from Nixon's in one crucial respect. Where
Nixon's impeachable abuse of power occurred over a period of several
years, the conduct challenged by the House's impeachment of Trump was not
nearly as prolonged. From July to September of last year, Trump
attempted to cajole a foreign government to open an investigation into his
political opponent. That conduct was wrong. But it's not the same as
what Nixon did over multiple years.

**Knox TN Today: Lamar Was Right
[link 8]**

Alexander now finds himself being excoriated by both sides.
The Trump supporters will never forget his failure to fall in line and
salute. The anti-Trumpers are expressing their disappointment.

I've
never been a Lamar fan. But I would like to make the case that he did
exactly the right thing and he expressed the position of the majority
of his Republican colleagues. He, and anyone who has been paying
attention, says Trump did what he was accused of and what he did was wrong -
inappropriate. But it did not rise to the level of removing him from
office. There was no point in listening to additional witnesses and
dragging things out. Everyone knew he was guilty. But if Trump is to be
removed from office, let the voters do it.




----------------------
footnotes
----------------------
[link 1]
[link removed]
[link 2]
[link removed]
[link 3]
[link removed]
[link 4]
[link removed]
[link 5]
[link removed]
[link 6]
[link removed]
[link 7]
[link removed]
[link 8]
[link removed]

Contact Information:

Website:
[link removed]

Office
Location:
Washington, DC Office
455 Dirksen Office Building, Washington, DC
20510
Phone: (202) 224-4944 | Fax: (202) 228-3398

Privacy Policy:
[link removed]
Unsubscribe:
[link removed]