August 22, 2003

COLMES: Late today, Chief Justice Roy Moore was suspended from the Alabama Supreme Court, pending a review of the Ten Commandments controversy. Last night on this program, Alan Keyes said that he would stand by Chief Justice Moore, no matter what happened.

Joining us now for the latest on this controversy is former presidential candidate Alan Keyes. And Alan, now that he's been suspended, you're standing by, and where does that leave you?

KEYES: Well, that leaves me clearly on the side of the man who stood by his oath, who stood by the right of the people of the state of Alabama to determine, in freedom, their religious affairs, and who stood against those who have at the state level betrayed the people of Alabama, and who on the federal bench have, without any basis in the Constitution, sought to dictate and interfere with the clear right of the people of the state of Alabama to determine their religious affairs under the Constitution of the United States.

COLMES: But you know, it wasn't the federal bench that suspended him. It was unanimously eight associate justices on the Alabama Supreme Court, all of whom stood with the federal judge, but they did this on the state level.

You made the argument for states' rights last night--ironically, the same argument used during the days of the sixties in Alabama for segregation. The same states' rights argument is being used now by Roy Moore and by you, in terms of keeping the Ten Commandments in the state house.

KEYES: What I find disingenuous here is that I'm supposed to interpret the Constitution out of fear of your silly slurs. Well, I don't. The Constitution says . . .

COLMES: Call me all the names you want, Mr. Keyes. It's not going to change the facts.

KEYES: Can I finish, please? The Constitution, Alan . . . The Constitution says what it says: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." Any power not given to the United States is "reserved to the states respectively, or to the people," the Tenth Amendment.

That meant clearly throughout our history, until the fraudulent fabrication by the courts at the federal level for their power grab, that meant clearly that the business of dealing with the issue of religious establishment was left in the hands of the state governments. Even if you accept the argument that the Fourteenth Amendment is to apply the Bill of Rights to the states, in this particular case, the right being protected is the right of the people to be free from federal interference in the matters of religion.

The privileges . . .

COLMES: All right. Let me ask you this question . . .

KEYES: Let me finish one statement. The privileges and immunities clause would therefore apply in this case to protect the immunity of the citizens of the respective states from interference and domination by any federal authority whatsoever.

And that was the purpose of the amendment.

COLMES: All right, we only have a short time here. If, indeed, another judge put out say, a representative of the Koran in the middle of a state house, would you have a problem--would you still be as understanding and as defensive of that action if it were not the Ten Commandments, but something that represented, for example, the Islamic faith? Would you be taking the same position?

KEYES: See, I am defending . . . That's what you don't understand, Alan. I am defending the Constitution of the United States from the fraudulent theft of the most fundamental right of the people, if the Founders are to be believed: the right of the people to be free from interference by the national government in determining religious affairs in their approach to religion at the state level.

It's not a matter just of the Ten Commandments or the Koran, it's a matter of this fundamental right of the people, clear as day in the Constitution, which has been fraudulently robbed from them by judges on the federal bench.

HANNITY: Alan. Our nation, our common law, our Declaration of Independence, are all founded on the Judeo-Christian principle, and you cannot deny that--which is a big part of the argument that Chief Justice Moore is making here.

He's now suspended, there's the risk of contempt, there's obviously the thought of jail. Do you think he's going to go to jail?

KEYES: Well, I sincerely hope not, because I think it would be a great travesty.

Consider for a moment, Sean, the truth of the matter. The truth of the matter is, he's bound by oath, as the Chief Justice of Alabama, to respect and protect the laws and the Constitution of the state. He's also bound, if the incorporation argument with respect to the Fourteenth Amendment is correct--he would be bound by the federal Constitution to stand in defense of the federally-secured right of the people of Alabama to make decisions with respect to their religious affairs, free of federal intervention.

So, he's obeying those laws, and obeying his oath--and he is given an unlawful order by a federal judge. Even the folks in our military, who are under discipline in the most dangerous situation you can imagine, are accorded the right, even the obligation, to disobey, to refuse, unlawful orders that they are given. And we're saying that the Chief Justice of the state of Alabama doesn't have a similar right?

HANNITY: The Supreme Court, when they're in session, they start with "God save the United States and this honorable court." When Congress is in session, when the Senate and House open their proceedings, they open with a prayer with a preacher who is on the public payroll, in that instance. Our currency, we know we have "In God We Trust." We have it in our Pledge. We have monuments throughout our nation paid for with taxpayer dollars that clearly reference God. Our founding document, the Declaration of Independence, makes references to God.

If they have their way on this, aren't all of these things next?

KEYES: Oh, absolutely. I think the agenda of the folks who brought this suit is an agenda to efface God from every level of our public life, and to establish a uniform regime of atheism in our public and political institutions--clean contrary to the intention of the Constitution, which was to guarantee the right of the people, in their respective states, to have pluralism and diversity at the state level, so that they would be able to see reflected in the laws the inclinations of their religious beliefs. That was the intention.

COLMES: I'm not sure this is a pluralism and diversity issue, as you suggest, but I'm sure we'll be back to debate it again. Thanks for being with us, Alan. We'll hear from the other side of this story in just a moment.