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."

I spoke about my decision to vote for acquittal on the Senate floor -- click here 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.

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

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

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

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

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

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.