It’s been quite awhile since I’ve written in this forum.
Is violating the Oath of Office an impeachable offense? That’s what bothers me about Senator Lamar Alexander’s statement.
“There is 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 have proved this with what they call a ‘mountain of overwhelming evidence.” [Alexander statement]
“It was inappropriate for the president to ask a foreign leader to investigate his political opponent and to withhold United States aid to encourage that investigation. When elected officials inappropriately interfere with such investigations, it undermines the principle of equal justice under the law. But 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.” [Alexander statement]
Inappropriate? Senator Alexander appears to acknowledge that Donald Trump violated Public Law 93-344.
Article II Section 4 of the US Constitution reads: “The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”
The presidential oath is: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
Is knowingly violating the law simply inappropriate to be determined by majority rule (actually not majority unless we change from Electoral College to popular vote) or is it more?
“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 provides that the people should make that decision in the presidential election that begins in Iowa on Monday.” [Alexander statement]
“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.” [Alexander statement]
Doesn’t it seem that even respected and distinguished Members of Congress like Senator Alexander have come to accept that we no longer have the so-called legislative session of Congress and then a campaigning session? The election cycle begins even prior to the conclusion of the previous election for both House and Executive, and it seems that not even the US Senate with six-year terms is still immune. It’s always someone else’s responsibility and needs to be put off until after the election.
Seriously, it’s like we have given up on not only bipartisanship but even coordination between Chambers of the Legislative Branch.
As to Senator Alexander’s assertion of “Let the people decide,” I agree but it isn’t always the people who make the decision. We elect representatives in our Republic. Member of the House and later with Amendment ratification, US Senators are elected directly. For the Executive Branch, the Electoral College decides as it should per our Constitution.
(Yes, I still believe in the Electoral College despite all of its flaws). I’ve run statistics on so many presidential elections and proportional allocation does not work any better than our current method of distributing Electoral College votes. For practical purposes, I don’t know if anything different would be better necessarily than what the Founders derived. I’ll agree, however, that only a handful of votes in select counties in a few states decides the outcomes of the presidential election given the dominance of both political parties and monetary funding. I just don’t have an easy alternative.
I’m not arguing that Donald Trump should be impeached. I’m stating that Alexander’s statement of voting against witnesses suggests that he believes that Donald Trump violated the law and that doing so is only inappropriate and not at least a “misdemeanor.” Only with firsthand witnesses can one make the case that there were mitigating circumstances where this law should not be enforced.
Notes:
Lamar Alexander statement:
Public Law 93-344:
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-88/pdf/STATUTE-88-Pg297.pdf
H.R.7130 – Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974: https://www.congress.gov/bill/93rd-congress/house-bill/7130
DOD authorization that Ukraine had met requirements for dispersal of funds:
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6593035-2019-05-23-Rood-DoD-Notification-on-USAI.html
GAO decision on withholding of funds to Ukraine:
https://www.gao.gov/assets/710/703909.pdf
An example that this “bending” of the Impoundment Control Act by this administration is not a one-time act, and that the US Senate sought additional information previously such as in the year 2018 with the Rescission of funds to the US Coast Guard.
https://www.gao.gov/assets/700/696175.pdf
LAB Louisiana Boy 