August 27, 2003

SEAN HANNITY, HOST: We now have the issue of the Ten Commandments in Montgomery, Alabama, in the Judicial Building. And joining us now on our newsmaker line, former Republican presidential candidate and U.N. Ambassador Alan Keyes is with us. Dr. Keyes, how are you?

ALAN KEYES: Fine, how are you, Sean?

HANNITY: You were in Montgomery for a better part of last week. You basically were working very closely with Chief Justice Roy Moore, and today was the day that they went in and actually removed the Ten Commandments. What were your thoughts as you were watching that?

KEYES: Well, I think we were all expecting this. It is the culmination of, and the carrying out of, this abuse by the courts of the right of the people of the state of Alabama under the U.S. Constitution to decide for themselves how their state government will reflect and express their religious sentiments. Sadly, this abuse of power has been carried out, but I think it is clear that the people of Alabama--and, indeed, people coming from all over the country--are determined that there will be a living monument to the Ten Commandments, and I think that the effort will be to keep it in place until this issue is properly resolved.

HANNITY: Well, we have Dr. James Dobson who is going to be on Hannity & Colmes tonight, and I understand that you and he will tomorrow be in Montgomery, what, 12:00 noon tomorrow, for a rally in support of Chief Justice Moore?

KEYES: Yes, we will, and I sincerely hope that folks, if they can make it where ever they happen to be in the county, will join us there in support of Judge Moore and in support of the constitutional right of the people of the state of Alabama to decide without federal interference, as the Constitution provides, how their government shall reflect their religious sentiments.

HANNITY: You know, our founding document--and you're a great historian, Dr. Keyes, I've discussed these matters with you both privately and publicly--is the Declaration of Independence. It has phrases like "the laws of nature and of nature's God," "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights," "the Supreme Judge of the world." If our Founders intended to completely abolish any link between God and the United States, why would they include such references in the Declaration? Why is Congress allowed to open each session in both the Senate and the House with a prayer, by a preacher on the public payroll? Do you know what I'm saying?

KEYES: Well, I think obviously the Founders didn't intend it, and, in fact, the first thing they did in the Bill of Rights was to guarantee that the people of the states, the states and the people of the states, would be free from federal dictation on the issue of how religion is to be expressed by the state governments. The First Amendment says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." That has been falsely presented as a ban on establishment, but the words themselves reveal the lie. It's a ban on federal involvement with the issue of religious establishment.

And that means that, via the Tenth Amendment--which says that any power not given to the U.S. government, or prohibited to the states, is reserved to the states respectively, and to the people--the power to address this issue is left to the people of the state, in and through their state government, according to their choice according to their respective state constitution. That's the Constitution.

HANNITY: But the bottom line is, Ambassador, that you pretty much have lost this fight. Do you think there's any way you might see a day . . .

KEYES: I don't know what you're talking about, Sean. This fight has never been fought before! We surely haven't lost it. They have . . .

HANNITY: No, no. What I mean is, in as much as . . .

KEYES: They have lied, they have fraudulently abused the Constitution for the last forty years. But the fact that somebody gets away with embezzlement for five years doesn't mean they're going to get away with it when you get them.

HANNITY: Well, that's a good . . . that's my next point. What do you plan to do? How do you plan to fight this? Because they, today--and you saw it on TV--they took the Ten Commandments right out of the public square. Right there in the Judicial Building, it's gone--and in that sense, they . . .

KEYES: We ought to address the root of this problem, Sean, and the root of this problem is the abuse of federal judicial power contrary to the clear, plain text of the Constitution. In order to address that abuse, Congress must act to remove these issues.

All those matters that, by the conjoint effect of the First and Tenth Amendments, are reserved to the states respectively and the people, must be removed by Congressional action, under Article 3 of the Constitution, from the jurisdiction of the federal courts.

HANNITY: Do you see a day when that happens, and that these Ten Commandments are put back?

KEYES: I see that day coming. I think people of this county are going to rise up now against this effort of the federal judges to impose a uniform national regime of atheism throughout the United States at all levels of government. That is plainly contrary to the Constitution's stand on any uniform imposition of a regime on religion throughout the nation.

And it's going to get . . . We're going to stop it. We're going to organize people around this county, put pressure on the Congress to stand up for the rights of the people collective in the Bill of Rights.

HANNITY: We have to . . . All right, all right. Because I agree with you. But I think, clearly, those on the other side have other issues in their sight, and whether we want to admit it or not, I think they feel they had a big victory today.

But, for example, when the Supreme Court is in session, every day it opens its proceedings with the statement, "God save the United States and this honorable court." I mentioned Congress before, both the Senate and the House, they open their proceedings with a prayer given by a preacher who's on the public payroll. Our currency references God; "In God We Trust" on U.S. coinage; "One nation, under God" in our Pledge; our founding document, the Declaration of Independence, references God. I'm just wondering--they're not stopping here, are they? Isn't their plan, on the other side, to remove these references, all public references to such a thing?

KEYES: Oh, their effort is to remove all public references to God, anything that smacks of religion, at every level of public life--from the Biblical inscription on the Liberty Bell, all the way down to the Ten Commandments in Alabama. But they are doing so using federal judges who are unlawfully attempting to dictate to the people of the states on this matter, and I think that Roy Moore is but the first of those state officials who will follow the requirements of the U.S. Constitution, do their duty under the Fourteenth Amendment, and refuse to infringe this right of our citizens to be immune from federal interference on this question.

HANNITY: Let me ask you a question, because we've had a number of issues over the years, obviously the Dred Scott case, where slavery was upheld, or Plessy vs. Ferguson, where segregation was upheld, or I think that we could even use Roe vs. Wade, where courts were wrong. And some have questioned whether or not this is the proper tactic of Chief Justice Moore, or whether or not he should have, quote, "obeyed the law," by not saying he would obey it, but by stepping down from his position. Would that have been a better tactic in your view?

KEYES: Excuse me, excuse me, sir. There is no law. No law has been disobeyed here.

HANNITY: I'm sorry, a court ruling.

KEYES: No, I'm sorry, Sean. Court rulings without law are lawless rulings, and are not to be obeyed. Courts cannot make law. They cannot dictate through the arbitrary will of judges. They must be founded either in the law or in the Constitution--and there is no basis whatsoever for this judge's authority in the law or in the Constitution. In fact, the Constitution explicitly withholds this authority from anyone in the federal government.

HANNITY: Well, I'll tell where you're right, because courts have been wrong before, and I mentioned three cases moments ago: Dred Scott, Plessy vs. Ferguson, slavery, segregation, Roe vs. Wade. Courts have not always been a force for justice.

But I guess the question that I'm trying to get to you is, tactically speaking, is it better for a judge to look at a court order and ignore it? Or is it better for a judge to say, "I cannot uphold this," and to perhaps resign, as other people in past issues have done?

KEYES: I'm sorry. Chief Justice Roy Moore has an obligation by his oath under the Constitution of Alabama, and under the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. He is bound to refrain from all action that will infringe upon the rights of the citizens of the United States, and one of those rights, guaranteed by the First and Tenth Amendments, is the right of the people to decide this issue at the state level.

So, he's not engaging in a tactic, Sean, he was simply doing his duty to resist. Just as a private in the Army would have to resist--refuse, as they say--an unlawful order that violated the rights of individuals, so a state official must refuse unlawful court orders that destroy the right of the people, guaranteed by the First and Tenth Amendments.

HANNITY: And people need to understand this. We don't get our moral underpinnings from courts. I mean, if you read our Founders, they're very clear. They believe, fundamentally, we get our moral underpinnings from God.

And to just add a point to this, we now see, I guess, in this whole thing, a concerted campaign. It seems to me, either we're going to believe Jefferson's comments about we're endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights, or we're going to give in to this concerted campaign to replace what is clearly, in that case, a God-given right with a man-given privilege of some kind. Correct?

KEYES: I think that the issue that we're confronted with here, though, is whether the people of the state of Alabama have the right to decide that question for themselves, as the Constitution provides, or whether they must submit to the unlawful dictation of a federal judge whose order has no basis in the Constitution--which can have no basis in federal law, because Congress is not allowed by the Constitution to make any laws in this area.

So, if it's not in the Constitution, and it's not in the law, where does he get the authority to issue this order?

HANNITY: All right. Listen, we're going to . . . we'll be following this story. Now, you're going to be with Dr. Dobson--now, Dr. Dobson, by the way, is going to be on Hannity & Colmes tonight about this very issue--of Focus on the Family. Now, you guys will be, what, in Montgomery tomorrow, at the Judicial Building?

KEYES: We'll be at the Judicial Building.

HANNITY: At 12:00, noon, Central Time?

KEYES: I think we'll be joined there by a lot of folks at 12:00, noon, I sincerely hope.

HANNITY: All right, and if anybody wants to go to see Alan Keyes and Dr. Dobson, you can just go to the Judicial Building in Montgomery, Alabama, tomorrow.

And, Alan, we always appreciate having you on. Thank you for being with us.

KEYES: Glad to be with you. Thank you, Sean.

HANNITY: All right. Thank you very much. 800-941-SEAN. Yes, so we're going to actually have a pretty big focus on this tonight. Dr. James Dobson's going to be on, and we'll also have the other side of that debate.