Chairman West's Monday Message for 12.14.20

"...To Form a More Perfect Union"

Greetings, everyone!

Yep, today is that day when electors are chosen from the respective states, December 14th. More importantly, it is my wife Angela's birthday. But, what good is a birthday for my wife -- or any of us -- if we are not living up to the charge in the Preamble of our US Constitution. Those simple words, "We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union," are the essence, the binding fabric, to being a citizen in this Constitutional Republic.

Let us not forget, that it was Benjamin Franklin on September 17, 1787, Constitution Day, who responded to a question of whether we had a monarchy or a Republic, said, "A Republic, if you can keep it."

There are two aspects of a Republic, or as our Constitution states, a "Republican form of government:" the rule of law and individual rights, freedom, and liberty.

Therefore, I found some of the responses to these words rather perplexing, actually ignorant. I issued a response to the decision, this past Friday, by our US Supreme Court declining to hear the case brought forth by the State of Texas and enjoined by 17 other states. There are actually those who believe that I had no business responding to the decision at all. I found that humorous since I am the Chairman of the Republican Party of Texas . . . not to mention my status as a retired US Army officer who, for 22 years, swore an oath to our Constitution. But, it was these words, my closing sentence, that sent some into a delusional, apoplectic rage: "Perhaps law abiding States should bond together and form a Union of states that will abide by the Constitution."

Oh boy, you would have thought me to be the anti-Christ. But consider those words. They borrow from the same ideas contained in our Preamble to our Constitution of forming a more perfect Union. I am still trying to find where I said anything about "secession."

Truth be told, the real perpetrators of secession are the states, and others, named in the suit by Texas, who enacted illegal and unconstitutional actions resulting in the violation of election laws.

I have to ask a simple question: when did it become wrong to follow the law, and ask others to do the same? When did we become so partisan, or even ignorant and incompetent, that we accept a notion that a Union of law abiding States following the Constitution was seditious? But, a domestic terrorist group like Antifa, or illegally changing election law to the detriment of other states, is not?

I tend to believe this is the result of the progressive socialist left's overtaking of our education system so that we no longer teach true history and civics. We now indoctrinate people on this subjective notion called "social studies."

Let me frame the Texas lawsuit against Georgia, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin in good ol' Southern sense:

Imagine you lived in a community that was under a homeowners association, HOA. In order to live in that community you agreed to the rules and regulations of that HOA. You are supposed to abide by them, and be in compliance, for the good of the community. Well, in that community there are several homeowners who are not abiding by the HOA rules. They are not properly maintaining their property, trash is strewn all over the place, cars parked on the yard in front of the house. In time, property values decline for all homeowners. And because of the trash, there is a rodent infestation, which other property owners incur an expense. The dogs of some homes are not properly restrained, and an early morning jogger is attacked by a vicious dog.

Now, several of the property owners, who have evidence of all these violations, and have sworn statements articulating their grievances, submit them to the HOA board. The HOA board rejects their plea, and tells these homeowners that they do not have standing to present these valid issues. In essence, these homeowners have no equal protection under the HOA contract.

What do these homeowners -- who have abided by the HOA contract -- do? Well, they form a more perfect union, coalition, alliance, or consortium in order to protect their rights. Once upon a time, there were 13 homeowners who went to the HOA board -- England -- to present their petitions for redress of grievances, and they were denied hearing. As a result, those homeowners dissolved the bonds with that HOA, and formed these United States of America.

In Texas, there were some homeowners in a place called Gonzales who, on October 2, 1835, were told by the emissaries of a dictator to surrender the ability to defend themselves. Those homeowners decided to form a more perfect union and together stood on a field and said, "Come and Take It."

It is time we study our founding documents, and understand our fundamental principles and values. Our rule of law clearly articulates enumerated powers, roles, and responsibilities in our Republican form of government. Courts and the executive branch do not make laws, nor change them. We are not a constitutional monarchy to be ruled by mandates, orders, decrees, and edicts. Even here in Texas we have a little issue with that. Elected officials do not have the enumerated power to determine who and what is essential. The executive branch does not get to suspend individual rights and liberty for a "declared" emergency, change election law, unilaterally appropriate taxpayer funds, and take executive actions, overreach, without convening the legislative body.

What is essential in America, Texas, is liberty. When you have several states who do violate the law, as the Texas lawsuit presents, it results in damaging effects upon other states who do follow the law. Yet, our highest court -- which is supposed to interpret the law -- does not adjudicate properly . . . well, that violates the 14th Amendment's "equal protection under the law" clause. Then what are the law abiding states supposed to do? Why are there those who assail the people and states who follow the rule of the law?

The more perfect union exists with those who abide by the Constitution. Secession and sedition come from those who do not! They are the ones in the wrong, unless you believe that our Constitution is, as the lawsuit stated, "just a piece of parchment on display in a museum."

Our Declaration of Independence elevated individual rights over the collective subjugation of an intrusive and onerous government. It established the dissolution of the bond between the people and government when the consent of the governed, not ruled, no longer existed.

The Texas lawsuit that was rejected by the highest court in the land, charged with interpreting our law, articulated a clear choice. Either we are a nation of laws that establishes how we are to be governed, or we are a nation where ideologues pick and choose what is applicable to them, to the detriment of those who follow the law.

The former is how we form a more perfect union, equal adherence and protection under the law. The latter is how we dissolve into the tyranny of the rule of absolutism.

My statement, my response, my words, and my lasting oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America, and honor our Texas Constitution are clear.

What is your response? What shall you choose: rule of law or rule of absolutism?

Steadfast and Loyal,