August 28, 2003

JOSEPH FARAH, HOST: We're back with the WorldNetDaily Report, and we're joined this hour by Alan Keyes--WorldNetDaily columnist, author, activist. The honorable Alan Keyes.

You know, Alan, I usually hate to use that honorific title with diplomats, but with you will gladly make an exception, because you are an honorable man.

ALAN KEYES: Well, thank you.

FARAH: We appreciate you being down there in Montgomery, Alabama, supporting Justice Roy Moore in this important fight, and I hope that you can give us a glimpse of what's happening right now on the front lines, and what you think is going to happen next.

KEYES: Well, today was actually a very exciting day. As you probably know, Jim Dobson, of Focus on the Family, after featuring this battle on his radio program, came to Montgomery today to a very large crowd that turned out on the steps of the Judicial Building, spoke of the need to join together to fight judicial tyranny, and I think very cogently issued a call to people around the country to come together in defense of the right of the people in the states to honor God in and through their state governments according to the Constitution, and to resist the unlawful, unconstitutional encroachments by these federal judges, who have claimed a right to dictate to the people of this country on these issues that they have no foundation for in the law or in the Constitution of the United States.

FARAH: I think Jim Dobson surprised a lot of people on his radio show when he invited people from all over the country to join him in Montgomery. Any sense of how many people have taken him up on that invitation?

KEYES: Well, I'm not sure. There's a good crowd today. I'm not very good at estimating crowds, but I would say it had to be about 2,000 people. And folks have been coming--in the course of this week, they have, I think, resolved that they'll continue to come. There is a purpose, I think, among the people in the state to maintain a living monument on the steps of the Judicial Building, so that there will, in fact, be an acknowledgment of God while this issue moves forward, and is decided, hopefully, eventually by the Congress--who can move under Article 3 to limit the jurisdiction of the courts and reclaim the respect for the First Amendment, so that the people of the states will be left free to honor God as the Constitution reserves to them the right to do.

FARAH: Alan, now that the monument has been moved from the public view, do you sense, do you see that there's as much media interest in this story, or is the media going to move this story out of our view, as well?

KEYES: Well, I think that, obviously, the media types play on sensationalism, and the dramatic confrontation over the monument may or may not attract their interest in the same way with the monument moved. I think what they will discover is that this is the beginning of a battle. It was announced today at the rally, for instance, that the governor of Mississippi has said that he'd be glad to take the monument there in Mississippi, and put it on display. And I think that we may find, I hope we will find, that other governors, other state officials, will be doing the same thing, in assertion of their clear right under the Constitution to act according to the will of their people in the state in this matter.

And that's what I think is the key issue, which Dobson identified and which I have been speaking to over the course of the last week, that we are in a situation which has prevailed, sadly, for the last--what is it?--fifty years, in which the court has claimed jurisdiction over this matter, when the Constitution, in the clear, plain language of the day, without any need for interpretation, forbids this to the federal government.

FARAH: You know, it was your conversation, I think, with Dr. Dobson on the radio earlier this week which really crystallized for me two things: first of all, just how titanic this battle really is. I knew it was important, but what you said in that interview really made it come home for me. And the second point was, you know, how little excuse the federal government really had for getting involved in this case in the beginning.

You talked about the First Amendment, and really gave me an insight into a different interpretation of the Establishment Clause than I had seen previously. Can you talk about that a little bit?

KEYES: Well, I think, yes--one of the things we need to do is go back to the Constitution and just look at it as it is written, because that's the purpose of having a written Constitution, so a lot of [unintelligible] gobbledygook coming from lawyers and judge can't substitute for the text. That's why constitutions were written down, because it had been the habit of jurists to try to pretend that things were this way when they were really that way, whatever served their interest and power. When you have a written constitution, you can see the words. The words say, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." And they've tried to say, "Well, that's a ban on establishment." No, it's not. It's clear in the language.

To say you can't make a law that deals with or that has anything to do with a subject doesn't decide that issue one way or the other. It simply says you can't decide it. And that's what the words of the Constitution say. "Congress shall make no law respecting," that is, concerning or with regard to, "an establishment of religion." It means they can't establish one, and they can't prohibit the establishment of one. It's very simple. They can't touch the issue at all.

Now, at the time that amendment was passed, there were established churches in the states, and that meant that Congress couldn't interfere with them. If they were to be changed or altered in any way, it had to be done by the people of the states. And you have argued, "Well, maybe that's not clear," and so forth, except for the Tenth Amendment, which says that if the Constitution does not give the power to the U.S. government, and does not prohibit it to the states, then it is reserved to the states respectively, and the people.

So, the right to deal with the issue of establishment is reserved to the people of the state, in and through their state government. And that's clear. There's no interpretation involved in that. That's just reading the Constitution. You don't have to become some obscure guru of interpretation to understand it, because the words are plain.

FARAH: It's so clear, only a lawyer could be confused.

KEYES: I think so.

And then, of course, they argued over the years that the Fourteenth Amendment applied the Bill of Rights to the states, and that meant that the ban on religious establishment was applied to the states. Well, as we have seen, there is no ban on religious establishment. There is a ban on federal action that leaves this issue in the hands of the states, that is to say, that confirms the right of the people to decide on matters of religion, free from the dictation and domination of the federal government. That's what the Bill of Rights established.

So, if the Fourteenth Amendment enjoins the Bill of Rights upon the states, makes it incumbent upon the state officials and governments to respect what's in the Bill of Rights, then it is incumbent upon state officials to respect the right of the people in their states to decide this issue, and to resist federal encroachment against that right.

And guess what? That's exactly what Roy Moore has done. So, both under the Alabama Constitution, under his oath before the people of the state, and under the Constitution of the federal government, where the Bill of Rights and respect for it is enjoined upon him by the Fourteenth Amendment, Roy Moore is upholding the law. He is not, in any way, showing disrespect for it. It is Judge Myron Thompson who is disregarding the supreme law of the land, the Constitution, which reserves to the people of the states--in this case, the people of Alabama--the right to decide on this issue which he is usurping.

FARAH: Alan, stay with us. We'd like to get some callers involved in the next segment. 1-800-510-TALK, 1-800-510-8255. We're talking to Alan Keyes, the honorable Alan Keyes, and we'll be back after this.

[BREAK]

FARAH: We're talking to Alan Keyes, who's in Montgomery, Alabama, and we'll be addressing the big rally tonight with Dr. James Dobson and Chief Justice Roy Moore.

Before we go to the phones, Alan, I wanted to ask you how you think this issue is going to be resolved. Is this going to be resolved in the courts?

KEYES: It can't be resolved in the courts, for a number of reasons. First, because the courts are the source of the violation of the Constitution. They're like the perpetrators of this violation of the right of the people of the states. It is absurd to suggest that one can expect a fair judgment from a perpetrator sitting in judgment of his own offense--and that's basically what you have if you take this issue of jurisdiction of the federal court.

The Founders knew that, so by Article 3, Section 2, they left it to Congress to determine the jurisdiction of the federal court. And they said that in all other cases than those that had been specified for original jurisdiction in the Supreme Court, appellate jurisdiction would lie with the federal court, with such exceptions and under such regulations as the Congress may make. So, ultimately, this decision is for the Congress, not for the judges, themselves, not for the court, and the Congress needs to pass a simple piece of implementing legislation that would say that in order to observe the First Amendment, requirements of the First Amendment to the Constitution, Congress hereby excepts from the jurisdiction of the federal courts at every level all matters that, by the First and Tenth Amendments, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

FARAH: You got a question or comment for Alan Keyes? Call us, 1-800-510-TALK, 1-800-510-8255. Let's go to Jim in Texas.

JIM: Hi. Alan, I wanted to say thanks for providing excellent and thoughtful leadership on this issue, and then I wanted to ask two questions about the problem with leadership. I see Christian leaders in other areas saying that Judge Roy Moore is doing wrong because he has disobeyed a lawful court order (Pat Robertson's words), or (Richard Land) that he is disobeying the rule of law. How can it be that these leaders are so ignorant that they don't see that, since there can be no federal law on this area, there can be no federal jurisdiction?

And then, secondly, the problem: aren't they setting Christians up by saying, basically, "If a judge says that it's true, we have to do it, and worry about our appeals later"? Isn't it dangerous, because a year from now, a judge might say, "Oh, you can't quote those Bible verses, it's a court order, because homosexuals will find offense," or, "You can't homeschool your kids. Court order."

KEYES: That's exactly what's going to happen. A matter of fact, we are . . . It's the day before they pass the legislation that declares that any reference to Biblical passages declaring homosexuality to be an abomination is hate speech--and when the judge says that, we're supposed to lie down and play dead, and give up the word of God, and honor sin. In the state of California right now, they've just passed a law that says, if you're not willing to affirm homosexuality, you can't adopt a child in the state of California. It's on Gray Davis' desk right now.

So, if we're going to take the attitude that it's all lawful, so long as the judge says it, without any regard for what's in the law or the Constitution, then we no longer have a government of laws, we have a government of arbitrary dictatorship by the courts. That's what I don't understand. Paul Weyrich, Richard Land, Jay Sekulow, all these people acting as if the mere pronouncement by a judge is the law. Under the Constitution, no power to make law is given to the courts; that's in the hands of the legislature. And therefore, if a judge says something that has no basis in law, and that has no basis in the Constitution, it is not lawful just because he says it.

What's the purpose of having a written Constitution, if they can make it up as they go along? What's the purpose of having laws? If anything dictated by the judge will now be considered a law, we don't need legislatures, we don't need the Congress anymore, we just need the dictators who sit on the bench.

I don't understand how these folks can ignore what the Founders told us, can ignore what Jefferson said, and Adams, and others about the despotism of the judiciary if you allow them to depart from the law as written, and the Constitution as written. Hamilton talks about it in the Federalist Papers, and identifies it clearly as an offense, a high crime and misdemeanor, that is subject to impeachment.

So, under the circumstances, the notion that you should do everything a judge says--so if a judge says to kill an innocent person as they come into the courtroom, you're supposed to obey that order? Far from it. You are under an obligation, morally and otherwise, to disobey it, just like a private soldier in the Army would be, if given an unlawful order. And here's the point: how can Pat Robertson say this is lawful, when there's no federal statute, and when it is contrary to the clear, plain language of the Constitution, which leaves this matter in the hands of the state, and forbids federal authority to address it? It is an unlawful order--and unlawful orders not only should not be obeyed, they must be refused when they violate the fundamental right of the people.

FARAH: All right. We've got one more segment with Alan Keyes. 1-800-510-8255, 1-800-510-TALK is the number. Get in. We're going to be talking more about some of these misguided pundits out there, and what is leading them astray.

[BREAK]

FARAH: We're talking to Alan Keyes from Montgomery, Alabama. We're talking about the big story occupying the attention of the nation right now, the Ten Commandments debate. Alan, with issues like this, normally, the people who rise to the occasion and take the right position and rally the grassroots forces are talk radio hosts, and a lot of them have been kind of missing in action in this fight. And, you know, the whole pundit class, from people like Fred Barnes--and you mentioned some of the other names, Richard Land and Jay Sekulow, and so forth. These people are out to lunch on this issue, they're missing the boat. Is it because they're so desperate to want to play to the establishment? What is obscuring their view of this story?

KEYES: I don't know the answer to that question. I really don't. I have been both dismayed and surprised, because some of these folks are people who have called attention in the past to these judicial usurpations and this judicial tyranny. They know that what the courts are doing is not legitimate. And, it seems to me, you sit down with the Constitution, it leaps out at you that this is not an obscure issue. It's pretty plain on the face of the text.

I think some of the folks who are lawyers, maybe you go through that legal formation and it puts shackles on your mind that are hard to break. I hate to think that they share in the selfish interest of the legal profession, because obviously this issue has to do with those seats on the federal bench that are, in a way, the apple of the eye of ambition when you're part of the legal profession--right? And it's hard, I would imagine, to deny a power you may hope to weald someday.

But I would hope that that kind of ambition isn't affecting the judgment of the people we're talking about. I hardly believe it could. I think, at the end of the day, they've simply allowed their reverence for law to become the enemy of their judgment and their reverence for God and the Constitution. And yet, at the end of the day, that reverence for law is precisely what's at stake here, because if we don't insist that the judges uphold the Constitution, then, in point of fact, we have no rule of law in America--we simply have a lot of lawless judges who've become our dictators, and from whom we have, I guess, by what these people are saying, no appeal.

And that would mean, by the way, also that our Constitution would be destroyed, because it establishes a republican form of government--government of the people, by the people, for the people. And Article 4, Section 4, says that the federal government must guarantee to the states a republican form of government--that is, government of the people, by the people, for the people. If you allow a dictatorship of judges to be put in place of that government by the people, then you have destroyed our Constitution and our way of life. I can't believe these folks want to do that, and yet, the position they're taking produces that result.

FARAH: We've decided this problem is not going to be fixed by the courts, the courts broke it. There are a lot of people out there across this country--I'm hearing from them by e-mail, telephones--they want to know what they can do to support Justice Moore, to support you and Dr. Dobson in this fight. Not everybody can go to Montgomery, Alabama. What can they do, Alan?

KEYES: Well, I would reiterate, though, that the people who can come to Montgomery, and have a way, even if it's, you know--I believe that, from the point of view of God and country, this could become now a place of pilgrimage, where, when you get a chance, you come to show that you are standing firm in the right of the people, in and through their states, to honor God according to their will.

If you can't, then there's a nationwide movement developing to call on the Congress, the representatives of the people, to stand forward and defend this liberty of the people guaranteed to us by the Constitution, by passing the language that I talked about, in terms of limiting the jurisdiction of the courts in order to assure observance of the First Amendment. It's simple, it's plain, it's clear. It wouldn't require a lot of wordy consideration. It can be done by majority vote in the Congress. All they have to do now it stand up, and I think it would be very important for people to start putting pressure on the Congress to take this action to limit this usurpation of our liberty, and limit the jurisdiction of the federal courts. It's a very clear step that we can all pressure Congress to take, and once they take it, all of these kinds of issues would be removed from the purview of the federal courts in their abuse.

FARAH: Is there anybody in the House or Senate taking leadership on this role?

KEYES: Actually, now, I don't want to speak for them because I haven't spoken to them about this particular step . . .

FARAH: Where can people apply the pressure?

KEYES: But yes, there are people. There have been, in fact, specific bills put on the table to deal with the issue of the Ten Commandments, and so forth. All I'm suggesting is that instead of trying to deal piecemeal with these things one by one, we go to the root of it. And the root of it is this unlawful usurpation by the courts which can be ended easily by the Congress.

FARAH: You know, we had talked to John Hostettler before push came to shove on this issue, when the monument was still out there on public display, and as you probably know, he pushed through an amendment in the House that would have deprived funding to federal marshals to remove that . . . What happened? Did the Senate act on that? Federal marshals, to my understanding, weren't even involved. How did this happen?

KEYES: No, they weren't even involved. I think what was done, to be frank about it, is that a lot of pressure was put on certain Alabama officials, in order to avoid putting the federal authorities on the spot in this. And I think that that is unfortunate, because instead of being afraid of this issue, I think that our federal authorities--and this means, of course, President Bush, Attorney General Ashcroft--they should have seen this as an opportunity to stand up and defend the liberty of the people in this regard, and restore the right situation of our Constitution. They should still see it that way, and stand up to take leadership in organizing in the Congress--as the president certainly can do--the effort to limit the jurisdiction of the courts and end their usurpation in this area. I think that that could still be done, but I think that the clear responsibility under the Constitution lies in the hands of the Congress, the Senate and the House, and we must demand that the representatives of the people stand now in defense of this liberty of the people.

FARAH: Alan, I so appreciate your time and your commitment to this cause. If there's anything I can do, this radio program can do, WorldNetDaily can do to help you in this battle, please let us know.

KEYES: Well, you have done an enormous amount in getting the word out, in putting these arguments before people. I think the educational task right now is the critical one to take the blinders off, to overcome years of unfortunate brainwashing by the liberal left, so that we can liberate the hearts of our people, and they can stand forward with courage.

FARAH: God bless you, brother.

KEYES: Thank you.