August 29, 2003

HOST: When he ordered the removal of the monument from the Supreme Court building in Alabama, federal judge Myron Thompson stated that the issue at stake involved the question of whether or not the state had the right to acknowledge God. Our guest today says the real issue is whether or not Myron Thompson, or any other federal judge, has the right to interfere with state actions that may or may not constitute an establishment of religion.

Dr. Alan Keyes is our guest today. Ambassador Keyes, welcome to the broadcast.

ALAN KEYES: Thank you. Glad to be with you.

HOST: What's going on in Montgomery? It looks like it's a crisis of biblical proportions.

KEYES: Well, I think it is a crisis of great proportions. It's a crisis that goes to a fundamental constitutional right that is guaranteed to the people of this country, and that is being violated--and has been systematically violated for decades--by the federal courts.

The Constitution very clearly prohibits all federal authority on questions having to do with religious establishment. The words are clear: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." Those words are quite simple. They mean that Congress can't touch the issue, one way or another. And that's what the lawyers and the judges think we're too stupid to understand. Those words do not mean a ban on religious establishment throughout America. Those words mean a ban on any federal authority to address the issue of establishment. That's what the word "respecting" means: it means concerning, with regard to, about, having to do with. It doesn't say one way or another that this is prohibited; it simply means that the federal government can't touch it.

And the Tenth Amendment is very clear, because it says, if the power isn't given to the federal government, and it's not prohibited to the states (which it is not in the Constitution, anywhere), then it is reserved--that's a very important word--reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

That means the power to deal with issues of religious establishment is in the hands of the states, and the people of the states, and there can be no authority in the hands of a federal judge to deal with this issue.

So, Myron Thompson's jurisdiction does not exist. His court order is unlawful, because it's unconstitutional, and by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution (which applies the Bill of Rights to the states), under the Bill of Rights, the people of the states are the ones who have the right to deal with issues of religious establishment, free from federal interference. Therefore, every state official in America is obliged to refuse unlawful federal orders this violate right of the people. That is an obligation under the U.S. Constitution.

HOST: Well, we do all these people get off citing the thing, "We've just got to follow the rule of law"?

KEYES: Well, we do have to follow the rule of law. But among the people who must follow the rule of law are the federal judges. And if the Constitution forbids the federal government to address an issue, and they address it, they are violating the law.

And so, at that juncture, someone who represents the sovereignty of the state--and that is the position that Justice Moore is in. He's the chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, he represents the sovereign power of judgment in the state of Alabama, and he is obliged to refuse an unlawful court order that asks him to surrender the right of the people of the state which is granted and guaranteed to them under the Constitution--secured to them under the Constitution.

He is obliged to refuse an order that says, "You must violate that right."

HOST: But you have the attorney general, Bill Pryor of Alabama, you have eight justices, associate justices of the supreme court, are kind of giving lip-service, saying, "Well, we like the Ten Commandments, and we're for the Ten Commandments, but we must follow the federal judge." What's wrong with those folks?

KEYES: Well, they apparently do not understand their own position. They say they're respecting the law, and yet, by admitting that it is constitutional for the monument to be there, they are admitting that Judge Myron Thompson is taking an unconstitutional action.

Now, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Therefore, if it's unconstitutional, it's unlawful.

How can their cooperation in the unlawful action of the federal court be construed as support for law? It doesn't make any sense.

HOST: Let's go back to what's happening on the ground there in Montgomery. I understand you had a great rally last night, with thousands of people showing up. You and Dr. James Dobson were there addressing the crowd. What's the sentiment of the folks there?

KEYES: Well, we did. Yesterday--noon, it was--Jim Dobson came, and he gave a wonderful speech to a crowd of several thousand people that had gathered on the steps. I was there, and gave a speech. We also had a similarly big crowd in the evening, which I addressed.

People have come from all over the country, as well as all over Alabama, in support of Justice Moore as he defends the right of the people, as secured to them by the Constitution of the United States, to decide how they will honor God in and through their state governments and state institutions.

This is the right of the people, and I think some folks who are understanding that--they're being freed from what have been the shackles upon our heart and mind, placed there by decades of lies, decades of misrepresentation, where folks thought we'd be too stupid to go and actually see what the Constitution says. At the end of the day, however, we can read it, and at the end of the day, the issue of the jurisdiction of the federal courts is an issue us to decide. That's what a lot people don't understand. It is for the people of this country to decide that issue, because under Article 3, Section 2, the issues of the jurisdiction of the court are placed under the supervision of Congress, and Congress, of course, consists of representatives chosen by the people of the United States. Therefore, the Constitution says, "It's not for the courts to decide the limits of their own power. It's for the representatives of the people to make that decision."

HOST: Well, Ambassador Keyes, are we at a point, much like the folks in Nazi Germany were when--I hear all of these people, the attorney general included, Bill Pryor, I hear the governor, I hear a lot of people like Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention saying we've got to follow the rule of law. You know, that's what the people in Hitler's Germany were saying, "Well, we're just following the law."

KEYES: You see, we have a better situation than people in Germany, though. Our Constitution gives us this right. Judge Roy Moore is not breaking any law. I agree that we must follow the rule of law. I agree with it wholeheartedly. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. The Constitution reserves this right to the people of the states. When Judge Myron Thompson usurps their right, he violates the Constitution. He is the lawbreaker here.

And so, anyone who's saying, "Let's uphold the law," I say, "Yes. Let's uphold the law." In upholding the law, we must bridle the unlawful actions of these federal judges.

HOST: Well, how do we that? Do we introduce an impeachment resolution on people like Myron Thompson?

KEYES: No, no. It's very simple. Congress is given the authority to determine the jurisdiction of the federal courts. They just need, as part of an appropriations bill, or part of the authorization for the federal judiciary, they just need language that says that they hereby except from the jurisdiction of the federal courts all those matter which, by the conjoint effect of the First and Tenth Amendments, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. That would solve the matter right there, take all of these issues out of the hands of the courts, and respect the Tenth Amendment.

HOST: Our guest today, Alan Keyes, will be right back.

[BREAK]

HOST: You know, the facts and the truth are stubborn things. They just won't go away. As Winston Churchill has said, "The truth is incontrovertible. Ignorance may deride it, malice may attempt to destroy it, but there it is."

Our guest today is Ambassador Alan Keyes. Dr. Keyes, you have been at the forefront of a lot of the political actions of this nation, even ran for president in 2000. Quick question for you: what should the president be doing in all of this?

KEYES: To tell you the truth, I can only speak from a hypothetical point of view. Each individual president has his own considerations, I suppose. I would, if I were in that office, be looking at this as an opportunity to correct fifty years of deep and destructive judicial abuses, and I would stand before the people of this country, make the clear argument that is based upon the plain, clear words of the Constitution, and I would send to Congress, by my initiative, the language that was needed to remedy this situation, and ask that Congress take action to defend the right of the people, as secured under the Tenth Amendment, to address this issue free of any kind of interference or dictation from the federal courts or any other federal authorities.

That's what the Constitution provides for, and the Constitution should be respected. As someone who is sworn to preserve, protect, and defend--the president, I think, is the only who actually has the word "preserve" in his oath, so that his job is to make sure that, by the encroachment, and abuse, and neglect of people, the Constitution does not deteriorate, but that its integrity is preserved.

And so, he has a positive obligation, in fact, to step forward and make sure that things like this are addressed and are dealt with in such a way that the Constitution is respected. So, that's what I would do.

HOST: Well, in April, you know, the president signed a law designed to rein in those activist judges, and those judges now must state their reasons in writing, to make it easier for appeals court to overturn lenient citizens that they have downward departured, many people say, from the mandatory sentencing laws. We had a lot of leftist activists--even Chief Justice William Rehnquist flew into a snit last month, when Attorney General John Ashcroft ordered U.S. attorneys to tell the Department of Justice when a federal judge breaks the law. So, if it's OK for federal judges to do whatever they want, then why isn't it OK for Justice Moore to do what he wants?

KEYES: It's not OK for anybody to do it, and that's what I want to make clear. My position here is very clear: respect the law, respect the Constitution. It's not OK for judges to break the law because they feel like it, and the Constitution is clear on this point. Therefore, when the judges assert a jurisdiction that they don't have--this isn't a question of disagreeing with Judge Thompson's decision, or with what he says, or what his opinion is. The Constitution simply denies him the jurisdiction to address this question, and when he does so in any way, whatever his opinion, he violates the clear terms of the Constitution of the United States. It must stop.

In and of itself, therefore, his consideration of this case is an abuse.

HOST: So, what you're saying is, these judges have to understand what the law is and what it is not.

KEYES: No. What I'm saying is that these judges have to respect the Constitution! And in this particular case, Congress must take action to enforce that respect. That's what I'm saying.

This is not a matter of the subjective judgment of the court or their opinions. There is a clear prohibition, a ban on federal authority in this matter, and that ban must be respected.

HOST: And that is the supreme law called the Constitution. Is that right?

KEYES: Exactly. If we're going to be law-abiding, we've got to respect it.

HOST: Well, how do we rein in this, what many call, judicial self-interest?

KEYES: I'm sorry, go ahead.

HOST: How do we rein in this judicial self-interest? You know, a lot of these lawyers, you know, many of them, like Judge Pryor--he wants to be confirmed to a federal appeals court.

KEYES: Exactly.

HOST: And so, as a result, they are pandering, I think, to the judicial establishment, saying, "Hey, look at me. I'm going to follow the old boys club." Is that what we're dealing with?

KEYES: Yes, we are. I think that's definitely what we're dealing with in the case of Bill Pryor, and his actions, therefore, prove that he's unfit to be on the bench. What's the point of appointing to the federal bench one more toady of the abuse of federal power? One more guy who'll get on there and simply be subservient to the usurpation by the judges of the right of the people in these important and sensitive areas? Makes no sense at all. So, anyone who would support his nomination is just furthering the abuses.

I think what's clear is that this cannot be left to the lawyers, it can't be left to the judges, and the Constitution does not leave it in their hands--it leaves it in the hands of Congress, the representatives of the people, chosen by them, and with the obligation to defend the right of the people in this matter, which is being usurped and violated by the courts.

I think that the Founders were very wise. They knew you couldn't let the lawyers and judges be judges in their own cause, determine the boundaries of their own power. If you go to somebody who's abusing power, and say, "How much power do you have?" they're going to give you the answer you deserve for being so stupid.

You don't ask someone who is the perpetrator of a crime whether or not he should be stopped, whether or not he should be curtailed in his abuses. You go to those who have authority to supervise that perpetrator. And in this case, that is the Congress of the United States. It is their power, it is their obligation, to stand up and defend the liberty of the people which has been egregiously and systematically violated over decades by these judges.

HOST: Now, realistically, Ambassador Keyes, how many members of Congress really understand their role?

KEYES: I think they will understand it, and they are coming to understand it. And given the overwhelming support of the American people for the liberty of the people in this regard--with regard to this Ten Commandments issue, for instance, I saw something the other day that said 77% of the folks who were surveyed by Gallup said that they support the right of the people to honor God by displaying the Ten Commandments in a state rotunda.

I think the politicians will be seeing that this is close to the heart of the people. Americans are a pious people. We don't want to have anybody dictating our conscience, but we don't want to have federal judges dictating what we can do to honor God in and through our state institutions, when that decision has been made by someone overwhelmingly elected by the people of Alabama, reflecting their choice, and taking actions that in no way coerce anyone, they simply express the clear heart and reverence of the people, as the Constitution of the United States secures to them the right to do.

HOST: We've got thousands of people listening to this broadcast today, and let's get practical. Step one, what do we do?

KEYES: Step one, I would think that in a strong show of support for Justice Moore, who is standing up for the right of the people here, anyone who can ought to come to Montgomery. There's going to be a on-going vigil there. They have moved the stone monument, but it is being replaced by a human monument, people who are pledged to hold up those Ten Commandments, and make sure that they stay in place until this issue is properly resolved. And folks can come and join in that effort. Every time somebody says, "What can we do about this?" there is something everybody can do: make this pilgrimage to Montgomery, stand there for a while and become part of that human monument to the right of the people to respect and reverence the word of God.

Second, demand that your congressmen support the legislation that limits the jurisdiction of the federal courts, so that the First Amendment is respected and this right of the people is secured.

One simple piece of legislation will resolve this matter once and for all, and all of these issues that they have been unlawfully addressing will then be removed from their jurisdiction. No more court harassment of city council officials because they want to say a prayer. No more court harassment of state governments. No more court harassment of school boards. It would be over, as the Constitution says it should be over.

HOST: Well, let's go back twenty years. Twenty years ago, this kind of nonsense by Judge Myron Thompson wouldn't even be tolerated. He'd be laughed out of the country, wouldn't he?

KEYES: No, I think we have to go farther than that.

HOST: All right, forty years ago.

KEYES: Unhappily, the court has been abusing this authority for decades. And admittedly, people were busy. We had the Cold War, we had all kinds of dangers and threats that kept people, I think, from focusing on this key issue, and on the fact that we were being robbed, essentially, that the judges and justices were stealing our rights. And this theft was perpetrated, not once or twice, but systematically over the course of decades. Well, we've caught them at it now.

And now that they have carried this so far as to make it clear that they mean to impose a regime of uniform atheism throughout the United States, at every level of our government, in every aspect of our political life--this is insufferable. And we must stand up now and say no, and demand that the Constitution be respected according to its terms.

HOST: And if we don't do it, Ambassador Keyes, what's going to happen?

KEYES: Well, if we don't, I think it's clear what's going to happen. They're going to drive God out of the public square. They're going to say that any morality based upon religion is irrelevant to our political discourse. They will assault the family, as they are doing, to overturn the marriage-based family. They will legitimize homosexuality, as they are doing. And finally, as they're doing in California, a bill was just passed--it's on the desk of Gray Davis right now to be signed-- that says that if you do not affirm homosexuality, you will not be allowed to adopt a child in the state of California.

So, what we are trying to stop here, my friends, is that regime of persecution that will be systematically directed at every believing person, if we do not stand up now to defend our rights.

HOST: And there goes the blessings of liberty.

KEYES: Yes, indeed.

HOST: Ambassador Alan Keyes, God bless you, my friend, and you keep on fighting the good fight, because I really believe you're doing what God commands, occupying and taking dominion.

KEYES: Well, thank you for that. I appreciate it, and God bless you.