Herman: Be wary of people like Allen West and their interpretations
Allen West #AllenWest
GEORGETOWN — The question, in my simple mind, seemed pretty simple. The answers were not.
But they sure seemed to mean that the duly elected chairman of the Republican Party of Texas refused to say there were any circumstances under which he would accept Joe Biden as the duly elected president of the United States of America.
I’m not sure if it matters if a duly elected chairman of the state Republican Party accepts the legitimacy of a duly elected president of the U.S. of A. But it does seem weird. Maybe unhealthy for democracy.
Highlights from my Friday Q&A with Texas GOP Chairman Allen West at a news conference convened in conjunction with this weekend’s meeting of the State Republican Executive Committee:
Me: “Are there any circumstances under which Joe Biden takes the oath of office where you will consider him the legitimate president?”
West: “Well, I will tell you that if we can resolve all of these issues with the voting irregularities then I’ll be happy to do that. But I think that every Republican, Democrat, independent, Green Party, Libertarian, if you look and see, I think it’s 47% in the United States of America, and this 47% of Americans believe that there were voting irregularities in this 2020 election cycle. So I think that’s something that we need to be concerned about. If we do not honor our election integrity, if we do not honor the rule of law, if we have all of these practices whereby people are violating election law in their respective states all across the United States of America, then the (military) oath that I took on 31 July 1982 to the Constitution of the United States of America, it doesn’t mean anything.”
Me: “Will Supreme Court rulings and the resolution of all pending lawsuits, (mean it’s) resolved in your definition of it?”
West: “What the Texas lawsuit is asking for is not to throw ballots out, but for the electors to be chosen by the state legislators. That’s part of the Constitution.”
Me: “If the Supreme Court rejects that, will you consider Joe Biden legitimate president when he takes the oath on Jan. 20?”
West: “I want to make sure that all of the issues that we see resolved out there are rectified.”
Me: “So if there is any lawsuit pending on Jan. 20 you will not (consider it rectified)?”
West: “If there are unanswered questions out there. And furthermore, I don’t know why you’re asking me this question. For the past four years, it’s been the other political party that has been contentious over the results of the 2016 election. This is all about the rule of law. Either you believe in the rule of law or not. And Joe Biden is not more important to me than the rule of law in the constitutional republic that we call America.”
Me: “And what will it mean for you to not accept a sworn-in president as the president? How will that change what you do or what you believe? Will you not respect the actions of the president?”
West: “I will respect the Constitution.”
Me: “Will you respect the actions of our president?”
West: “I will respect the Constitution, sir.”
Me: “So you might not respect the actions of a duly sworn-in president of the United States?”
West: “If it is in violation of the Constitution of the United States of America, you have my answer.”
Me: “Under your definition of it or under the courts’?
West (pulling out a pocket Constitution): “It’s under the definition of what it says right here. The thing that I carry.”
Me: “Your interpretation of it?”
West: “It’s not my interpretation of it. If we have a Supreme Court that rules against the law, then I think we have greater problems than who am I choosing to support.”
Interesting. Later Friday, after the U.S. Supreme Court jettisoned Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton’s ludicrous lawsuit challenging election results in four other states, West reacted as I feared he would, including this: “Perhaps law-abiding states should bond together and form a union of states that will abide by the Constitution.”
Tell me if I’m misinterpreting West’s bottom line. He has a view of how the Constitution should be interpreted. So do judges and justices who are called on, based on legally admissible evidence, to interpret it in cases presented to them.
Regardless of whether we like the judicial interpretations and the rulings they produce, it’s important that we respect the fact that those decisions were rendered by a system under which we’ve agreed to operate, a system most of us agree serves us well.
Chairman West doesn’t seem to share that core belief. He believes his interpretation of the Constitution is the only one that matters when it comes to something as pivotal as the selection of a president of the United States of America.
Be wary of people like that. People like that are just people with an opinion. Unless they’re wearing the robes of the judiciary.
This article originally appeared on Austin American-Statesman: Herman: Be wary of people like Allen West and their interpretations