August 27, 2003

MICHAEL REAGAN, HOST: My name is Mike Reagan, this is my show. Our phone numbers are 1-800-468-MIKE, 1-800-468-6453. Let us go to Ambassador Alan Keyes.

Where have you been, Alan?

ALAN KEYES: Hi, how are you?

REAGAN: How're you doing, friend? Been a long time.

KEYES: It's been a while.

REAGAN: Good to see you back on everywhere. It surely is.

KEYES: It's an issue that I think requires that all people who love this country, respect the Constitution, and want to see our liberties survive, everyone who has those feelings on their heart ought to be involved in this effort.

REAGAN: But they're not, are they?

KEYES: Well, I think a lot of people are waking up, yes. I've been encouraged. I think we've seen more leaders stand up. I'm going tomorrow with Jim Dobson down to Montgomery, Alabama. I think we'll probably have a good turnout of a lot of people who have gotten the word around the country about what is happening.

I think that a lot of believers are being confused because the media and others--including, unfortunately, some uninstructed people who are among conservatives and believers--are contending that Roy Moore is somehow showing disrespect for law in Alabama, and that is, of course, not true. These are people who do not understand the situation that we face, in terms of the Constitutional crisis that is finally coming to a head after decades of judicial abuse and usurpation. Finally, a state official has taken a stand against that abuse, and I've been doing my best to point people to the Constitution, where it is quite clear that the Constitution leaves the right to decide these matters to the states and the people of the states.

REAGAN: I know of what you are referring. There are talk show hosts out there saying, "Well, wait a minute. All well and good, the Ten Commandments and church and state," and so on, "but the fact of the matter is, the eight judges that Moore sits and presides over made a determination, and, in fact, he should abide by the determination made by the courts, and by not doing so--that is wrong."

KEYES: That's exactly what they're saying. But to start with, though, all of these people at the state level--the attorney general, the associate justices--claimed that they believed that it's constitutional for the Ten Commandments to be there, but that they must obey this court order. It's there that they are wrong, and that's the issue that must be addressed.

REAGAN: So tell us about that, OK, the court order.

KEYES: The court order from the federal judge has no basis whatsoever in law. I think the people who say that Judge Moore is breaking the law--I say, "What law are you talking about?" And of course they can't answer me because there can be no federal law on this subject. The Constitution forbids it. It's the first words of the First Amendment to the Constitution: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."

Now, that has been clear since the country was founded. Congress cannot address, cannot deal with, cannot make any law with regard to or concerning establishment of religion. Some people say, "Well, that's a ban on establishment." No, it's not. It's a ban on any federal action whatsoever with respect to the issue of religious establishment.

Since the federal government is denied this power, the Tenth Amendment makes it very clear that all powers not given to the U.S. government, or prohibited to the states by the Constitution, are reserved--that word is very important--reserved to the states respectively, or to the people, which means that the people of the states, through their state governments, have the power and the right to address the issue of establishment. The federal courts have no jurisdiction here. They are forbidden by the Constitution to address it. And the whole notion that they can somehow impose, through the Fourteenth Amendment, a ban on religious establishment--that ban does not exist. There is a ban on federal action. And the Fourteenth Amendment actually, then, requires the state officials to stand up and defend the right of the people in their states to make this issue according to their constitutional majority, according to their will. And that's what Judge Roy Moore has done. He's the one who's upholding the law.

REAGAN: Alan, let me ask you a question, because what I said on this show--and you could certainly tell me if I'm wrong, because you're that kind of a guy--but when I was talking about this the other night, I was also talking about the Ten Commandments, and all of this, from a historical perspective, that, in fact God, does not mean religion, religion means God, and God gave us the Ten Commandments. We have embraced the Ten Commandments, and our laws that we have are based on those commandments, and, therefore, does it not then have historical value to be exactly where it is?

KEYES: Let me tell you something. I guess I see this issue in terms that . . .

REAGAN: But couldn't you argue that point also?

KEYES: . . . we respect the Constitution. And the Constitution leaves all of these issues to the people of the states. Now, the people of Alabama strongly support Roy Moore in this. They elected him in order to have him fulfill his pledge to put the Ten Commandments where he put them--and the Constitution of the United States makes it clear that that decision is to be left to the states. It is the federal judge who is lawless. It is the federal judge who is going contrary to the Constitution, and under the Fourteenth Amendment, all of the officials in Alabama have the obligation not to infringe on the rights guaranteed to citizens of the United States by the Bill of Rights.

REAGAN: What religion are they saying is being, in fact, established?

KEYES: But Mike . . .

REAGAN: No, I understand, I understand your point, Alan, but the argument from that side--what religion do they say is being established?

KEYES: The argument from that side is a tyrannical argument, whereby they think that federal judges have the right to dictate to people in the states, according to the will of the ACLU or anybody else, that we must be a Godless nation, and that people at no level of our society have the right to acknowledge in and through their government the existence of God, and have the right to decide according to their will and vote how God shall be acknowledged in their state governments.

REAGAN: Now, again, we . . .

KEYES: In fact, it's guaranteed to them in the Constitution, and that's what we need to focus on. This is a tyrannical usurpation of the power and liberty of the people, explicitly guaranteed to them in the Constitution.

REAGAN: All right. I put out an op-ed piece today, and I just want to read with you the first paragraph, to see if you agree or disagree:

"When anybody claims that it is unconstitutional for the state to acknowledge God by displaying the Ten Commandments or some other symbol of our Judeo/Christian heritage they are really claiming that our Founding Fathers, the authors of the Constitution, would have agreed with them."

Isn't that what they're saying? Am I right with this? Somebody says it's unconstitutional, I . . .

KEYES: Wait a minute. Mike, Mike, if they say it's unconstitutional, what they're saying is that somewhere in the Constitution there is some requirement that we should keep religion away from government.

REAGAN: But my point, my point, my point being . . .

KEYES: Mike, that's a lie. We don't have to go into all these other issues.

REAGAN: But my point is . . .

KEYES: Go to the documents. There is nothing in the Constitution that warrants their view, and the exact words of the Constitution forbids the federal government, including the federal judges, to even touch this issue.

REAGAN: But the argument that the federal judges are making is such a specious argument. The fact of the matter is, when they say it's unconstitutional, [they] are absolutely wrong because they're saying that our Founding Fathers would have found the same thing, had they looked at it, if you go back to our Founding Fathers, they would have embraced it.

KEYES: Mike, our Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution quite clearly. We really can just go look at the words: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." There's no ambiguity in those words. There's no room for interpretation. It simply means that there can be no lawful basis at the federal level for anybody to address these questions.

REAGAN: But I have to take a break. I am the judge in this show, so have to take a break, Alan. Can you hang?

KEYES: I can hang.

REAGAN: OK. Alan Keyes, good ambassador, on the hot-line. I am Michael Reagan. You have a question you'd like to put to Alan Keyes? He's ready to answer 'em. The phone number, 1-800-468-MIKE. 1-800-468-6453. I am Michael Reagan.

[BREAK]

REAGAN: I am Mike Reagan speaking and visiting with Alan Keyes, the good ambassador who has been down there in Alabama fighting the battle of the Ten Commandments. He's going to be going down there tomorrow with James Dobson and others to carry on the vigil. You back with me there, Alan?

KEYES: I'm with you.

REAGAN: Let's take a couple of phone calls in the few moments we have left. Let's go to Bob in Illinois. Bob, you're on with Alan Keyes.

BOB: Hello, Michael, Mr. Keyes. A most excellent topic here. Well, see, I do agree with you on your argument, as far as the federal government, Supreme Court having no say in the issue, but on the other hand, are you then stating that the states have the right to choose which religion, artifacts, or elements of religion, are showcased in the government officers within the state--which would go against the concept of, I guess, separation of church and state? So you're saying . . .

KEYES: Separation of church and state is not required by our Constitution, and never was. When the First Amendment was passed, almost all the states had some form of established religion. The change in that, in some of the states--like Virginia, for instance--was being debated, starting in 1780, I believe. But you had states that had established religions with religious tests and all of that, all through--I think Massachusetts was late into the nineteenth century, even, and others well into the nineteenth century.

The idea wasn't that you couldn't have any religious expression in government. The idea was that the extent of it would be left up to the people, to be determined by constitutional means at the state level, and that meant that if you wanted something, you'd have to persuade other people in your state to look at it that way, and so forth. It also protected individual rights, so no one in this country can be coerced by government power into accepting any religion or professing any religion. So where ever there were any kind of oaths or affirmations, there were alternatives that had to be required and still have to be required, to allow others to come forward and enjoy the equal access to offices and citizenship. That's understood.

But there was never any requirement for this specious, so-called "separation of church and state." It was simply determined that we would not try to have a uniform national regime, because we were a pluralistic society, and we would get geographic expressions of that pluralism through the states, and allow that diversity to have expression--but we weren't, either, going to split into a situation where you would have a uniform national regime of atheism, which is what the courts are trying, by force and coercion, to impose.

REAGAN: All right, Bob. Thank you for the call. Tonya in Alabama, you're on with Ambassador Alan Keyes. Good evening.

TONYA: Good evening [unintelligible] Mr. Keyes, and thank you so much for your support on this issue. I am calling as a local gal who has had a bit of confusion. As a Christian, I have asked, where's the local support from our Baptist ministers, and even from the local community. If you look at the upwards of a thousand people that have been down there at the Judicial Building, the majority are from out of state. So, in my confusion [unintelligible] . . . for Judge Moore's sake that he is upholding the oath that he took when he came into this office. My pastor tells me that the only law in this present dispensation that God told us that told us that we must uphold do not apply to the Ten Commandments, as stated in the Old Testament. And I wanted to get your feeling for that, and why you think that there is not the local support among the local Baptist ministers and the Baptist community.

REAGAN: Ambassador?

KEYES: Actually, I think that first there has been an effort over the past several decades to intimidate Christian believers with this phony doctrine of, the myth of separation, with the manipulation of the 501(c)(3) status, and threats that somehow or another this would be curtailed, and assaults would be made against the financial underpinnings of the church. I think there's been a real desire to intimidate people while a regime was put in place that would scour all reference to God and religion of any kind at every level of our political life, and set the stage, of course, for what is coming, which is the persecution of people because of their Christian beliefs. We see that there're stages of that in California right now, where a law has just been passed that says that in order to adopt a child, you will have to affirm the acceptability of homosexuality, which would obviously exclude the Christian people, by virtue and force of law, from that possibility.

These are just the first drops in a rainstorm of persecution that will follow once we have allowed them to deprive us of the liberty given us in the Constitution to acknowledge God and express our reverence for Him, in and through our state institutions, according to our constitutional choice at the state level.

This is the root of this whole problem, because a few people have been able to manipulate the federal court system through the usurpation of these federal judges--otherwise, they would have to persuade the people.

REAGAN: Tonya, thank you very much. Alan, where do we go from here?

KEYES: Well, I think that where we go is a campaign to put pressure on Congress to exercise their authority under Article 3, Section 2, which says that the federal courts will have appellate jurisdiction, subject to accept the exceptions and "such regulations as Congress shall make."

REAGAN: And what chance do you think that has?

KEYES: There's going to be a groundswell against this effort to impose atheism throughout this nation. Believers are awakening, and they will not go back to sleep.

And I think we are just at the beginning, as [unintelligible] someone saying this in our history, we can look at this country now, and people say, "You've been defeated, the Ten Commandments are gone." I tell them that we have just begun this fight.

REAGAN: Just begun this fight. People want more information, do you have a place where they can go?

KEYES: Well, they can go to RenewAmerica.us, which is a website that is featuring this issue, and things that I am saying and doing on it. There's an article that I wrote at WorldNetDaily.com, which I think everyone needs to look at because it lays out in, I think, [unintelligible] the Constitution, and what it actually says on this issue, and makes clear how the judges for decades now have usurped the liberty of the people guaranteed to us by the First and Tenth Amendments, and enjoined upon the states, also, in terms of defending this privilege by the Fourteenth Amendment.

REAGAN: Alan, keep your head down and your powder dry. You take care, good friend.

KEYES: You too, Mike.

REAGAN: Take care. Bye, bye. I'm Mike Reagan, back right after this.