Alan Keyes
September 11, 2003
Barrow County Courthouse

You know, I was thinking, when I was coming, that it's wonderfully fitting that we should gather in this cause today on September 11th.

Like most Americans today, I have been in the course of remembering where I was, what I was doing, the events and circumstances of that awful day two years ago. And today, all across this country, as we have been reminded, people are remembering the day. They are remembering the dead. They are remembering the heroic sacrifices of our emergency personnel. They are remembering how the heart, and mind, and spirit of America came together on that day.

But I hope, as well, they are remembering something else. I hope they are remembering that on that day, we did not remember the dead, we grieved for them. On that day, we did not remember the heroes, we watched them.

On that day, when our vulnerability was revealed before the world, when we stood naked in darkness and uncertainty--on that day, we remembered God Almighty!

And in the days and weeks that followed those tragic events, we gathered together and we prayed together, and we raised our hearts and our songs to God Almighty. We prayed for His protection. We prayed for His blessing. And I can think of nothing more fitting than that we should gather together here those of us who have claimed from Him our rights and our safety, to demand before the face of the world our right to honor Him as a people in our public life!

But sadly, I think, over the course of the last several decades, there has been a sustained and consistent assault upon the right of the people of this country to reverence God, as citizens and in their public life.

We have those who have been trying their best to tell us that this is just a private matter, that it is something guaranteed only to individuals, and that somewhere in the Constitution of the United States, it is required that we should separate our reverence for God from every aspect of our public lives.

But I've always had one small problem with this, and I hope that anybody else who might have this problem would do me one small favor. When you get, as the county commissioners here have gotten, a letter from the ACLU that tells you that "well, we noticed that you are respecting God, we noticed that you are respecting His law, we noticed that you have placed an inscription of His will on the walls of your courthouse, and that's violation," I hope folks will do just one thing for me: that they'll turn around, whether it be to the ACLU or anybody else, and ask them to cite the law that is being violated.

Where is it? Who passed it? Who made it so?

We are fighting all over this country. I stood with Justice Roy Moore in Alabama, and as he came under assault from those who said that, somehow or another, he was violating the law, I raised the same question: what law?

See, and there is one great problem, because I know for a fact that even though the ACLU goes to the federal judges and points their fingers and says, "Let the thunderbolts of your judgment come against those who dare to honor God in our public life," and they claim that somewhere in the Constitution, there's some ground or basis or authority for interfering with this action on the part of the people in their representatives. We have one big problem. First, there is no law. There is particularly no federal law. See?

We do remember, don't we, that the judges don't get to make the laws?

I want to repeat that. Somebody needs to tell the lawyers, and all those who have been trying to pull the wool over our eyes, that we have not forgotten that there is no legislative power vested in the courts in this country.

Not only the Constitution of the United States, but the constitution of every one of our states, vests the legislative power in the representatives of the people, duly elected by them.

So that means, if you want to find a law on this subject, don't cite to me some judge's ruling, cite to me the law that that ruling was based upon!

Now, when it comes to the federal government, though, and the federal Constitution, there's one very big problem these folks have in citing a law on the issue of religious establishment, and that very big problem is right there in the very first words of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States: "Congress shall MAKE no law respecting an establishment of religion!"

One would think that, particularly in a day and age when we have been, over the course of the decades, making such an effort on public education and other things to make sure that everybody in the country would be able to read our great documents, you would think that what I just said would be fairly clear--and I imagine, to most people in this country it is.

But we will have to go over it, though, because a lot of folks in the media and many of the lawyers in the ACLU apparently can't read. Or else, my friends, they think that the rest of us can't read. I don't know which it is.

So, we'll go over it.

"Congress . . ."

We know who they are, right? They're the folks who sit in the House of Representatives and the Senate, elected every two years or six years (depending on who they are), by the people of their states and the districts in their states.

"Congress shall make no . . ."

Now, which part of the word "no" do they not understand?

"Shall make no law . . ."

That is, "statute," having the force of law, backed up by the coercive law enforcement power, subject to penalties of law.

"Congress shall make no law . . ."

Now, here's the part that ought to be very clear:

"Respecting . . ."

Now, that preposition can give people some problems, I suppose, but not usually. Respecting: with regard to, concerning, dealing with, having to do with--right?

"An establishment of religion."

Now, that seems pretty straightforward to me. And it doesn't mean what the ACLU folks have pretended for decades. They've been telling us, "That means that you can't have any kind of establishment of religion in America, anywhere at all." I look at those words, and guess what I realize? That's not what the words say at all.

Now, to be sure, at the national level, those words have the effect of preventing, Congress from passing a law that would establish a religion in this country. Those words, however, also have the effect of making sure that [neither] Congress, nor any other authority, agency, or branch of the federal government, can interfere with the right of the people in their states to address this issue as they see fit!

It reminds me, as I often tell folks, of those signs I used to see when I was serving Ronald Reagan in New York, and you would be looking for a parking space on the streets of New York, and folks who lived in the various apartment buildings would have put signs outside--and I saw one one day that said, "Don't even think about parking here!"

And what the First Amendment says to the Congress of the United States, and to the federal government that derives its whole legal authority from the laws passed by Congress. What they're telling those folks is, "Don't even think about the issue of religious establishment! That's none of your business!"

Now, here's the rub. Here's the thing that really puts it together, though. Because, naturally enough, you are left to wonder, "OK, if Congress can't think about it, who can?" And the Constitution's also very clear about that--clear in the sense that is unequivocal. The only way you can miss this is by not reading the document, because right there in the Tenth Amendment it says that "those powers not delegated by the Constitution to the United States, nor prohibited by it to the states"--see those two things? So, if they haven't given it to the United States government--and last time I looked, didn't the First Amendment not only not give it to them, the First Amendment put a big "no trespassing sign" in front?

"Don't touch it, don't look at it, don't think about it, don't make any law regarding it"--that's a pretty fair indication that it was not delegated to the United States government, isn't it? And you'll scour the Constitution up one side and down the other--guess what you'll never find? You'll never find another word on this subject in there! And that means that it was not prohibited to the states.

So, here's the Tenth Amendment: "Powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, and to the people"--that's us.

And I think it's time that we served notice on the ACLU and everybody else who has tried to pull the wool over America's eyes with their legal shenanigans, that we understand the truth. You can take this issue to any federal judge you want. You can take it to the federal judges, you can take it to the circuit courts, you can take it to the Supreme Court. They have no authority to address it! That authority is in our hands, and in the hands of our representatives!

Now, here's the problem. And I have to say this word because I feel deeply inspired to be here today--inspired, especially, by the courage and the dignity of your county commissioners. Because I've learned something from America's history and heritage, from the long struggle of my own folks in America for equal rights and citizenship. Here's what you learn: you don't keep a right unless you're willing to stand up for that right!

And there will be those who will come against these brave folks, and they'll point the finger and they'll say, "We went to the federal judge, and the federal judge said to take it down," and they'll stand and look them in the eye and say, "We're going to keep it up."

And they'll say, "You lawbreakers! You violators!" But tell me. Which do you think is higher? A federal judge's ruling that has no foundation in law or constitution, or the Constitution of the United States, clear on the face of it?

When the federal judges follow the law, when the federal judges respect the Constitution, then they represent the majesty of law. When the federal judges disregard the Constitution, they speak for no law, they speak for no one but themselves.

And when they seek to impose their personal whims upon the states and the representatives of the people of the states, they are not imposing law, they are imposing dictatorship!

And on this day, above all, as we commemorate those who died at the beginning of our fight against the dictatorship of terror, let us remember that there are battlefields far flung across this globe, white crosses growing row on row of Americans who died in the fight against dictatorship on far-flung battlefields. If they died abroad, you can bet that we will stand firm here!

The federal judges, the federal courts have usurped the right and power of the people explicitly granted to them by the Constitution. But let us think a little further: how have they used this usurpation? To what end have they practiced this abuse?

To the end of driving prayer from our public schools! To the end of banishing the acknowledgment of God from festivals and our games and all our gatherings as a people! To the end of making sure that from one end of this land to another, there would be imposed a regime of atheism at every level of our public life!

But I'll tell you. Is it a coincidence that since this usurpation began, we have seen a rising tide of violence and crime and drug abuse in our schools? That since this usurpation began, we have watched the disintegration of our family life and the destruction of our sexual mores? That since this usurpation began, we have paid billions and billions on the crime problems and the health problems that result from the moral disintegration of our country?

For decades, we have paid the price!

And following the wisdom of our Founders--who said that we should not, for light or transient causes, call into question those in authority over us--we have borne it with patience, we have paid the bills, we have paid the billions in taxes. In spite of all the consequences that we could see, we have suffered while evils were sufferable.

But now they come against us to tear from the very walls of our courthouses those laws and commandments which we have so tried to instill into the hearts of our children! And before the very face of those children we have instructed in this law, they wish us to stand by while contempt is shown for the law of God, which is the basis of all moral discipline and true self-government!

I think it is clear: we must tell it to the courts, and we must tell it to our representatives, "Yes, we are a patient and long-suffering people. Yes, we will suffer while evils are sufferable. But this evil is intolerable, and we will suffer it no more!"

Now, I think that I would be a little worried about the consequences of all this, if I didn't have a pretty secure knowledge that our Founders were, contrary to the propaganda of a lot of the left-wingers and other people, our Founders we actually very prudent, very wise individuals--prudent and wise enough to have put together a Constitution that has not only stood the test of time, but includes elements within it that address contingencies that, at their time, they probably thought were unimaginable.

And I think one of the contingencies they thought was unimaginable was the idea of a federal judge getting everybody to tear the Ten Commandments off the walls of the courthouse. I mean, you could tell how it never occurred to the founding generation this would be a problem. If it had, I don't think that they would have etched the Ten Commandments in stone up there at the Supreme Court of the United States. You can't get 'em off without effacing the building. I doubt they would have put it together that way.

I also think that they couldn't imagine it--they wouldn't have put a wonderful quote from Leviticus 25:10, "Proclaim liberty throughout the land, and to all the inhabitants thereof." They wouldn't have etched it in the middle of the Liberty Bell, knowing that you could only get it out with a blowtorch!

It never occurred to them that this free people would ever suffer the indignity of an assault that denied our right to speak the name of God Almighty!

It never occurred to them--but nonetheless, they did provide us with a remedy.

And it's a wonder to me that, over the course of the last several decades, so many people who pretend to be lawyers and to know all about this and that, they stand before the American people acting as if the ultimate authority on everything constitutional is the Supreme Court. You realize, don't you, that just from a simple logical point of view, this couldn't possibly be true. First, because we all know (I think we still learn it in school) that we have three branches of government--the legislative, the executive, and the judicial--and under the Constitution of the United States, they are three equal branches.

Now, it doesn't take too much sense, does it, to realize, if I make a contract with you that says we're equal partners, and then there's a clause in there that says that you get to interpret it and I don't, who's the superior partner: me or you?

So, it doesn't make any sense. If the Supreme Court actually stood all by itself, interpreting the Constitution according to its whim, we wouldn't have three equal branches of government, we'd have a dictatorship of the judges!

And not only was this not intended, it was explicitly warned against by Jefferson, by Adams, by Madison. They held up the danger of such judicial tyranny in order to make sure that down through all the generations of this country's history, we would be warned against such abuses.

And we can heed their warning, too, because right there in the Constitution, when they specified the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and the federal courts, they lay it out: "The judicial power will be vested in the Supreme Court," Article 3, Section 1. And it's interesting here: ". . . and such inferior courts as Congress may from time to time establish."

Every now and again, I point out to my colleagues the force of that word "may." See, it doesn't say "must." Every now and again, it would be good for the judges on the federal inferior court benches to remember that it's in the hands of Congress. If Congress woke up one day and decided to do it, there would be no federal inferior courts at all, because the Constitution doesn't say they have to set up those courts, it just says they may from time to time do it.

But [Article 3, Section 2] then goes on to specify the jurisdiction and the cases, and then a few cases where the court, the federal judiciary, has original jurisdiction. And then it says quite clearly that it will have, in all other cases, appellate jurisdiction. (So, original and appellate.) And here are the key words: "subject to such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make." Isn't that interesting?

So, all of these folks who are telling us, when it comes to determining the boundaries of the power of these federal judges, we just have to get down on our knees and hope for better dictation from our judicial dictators.

We need to look back at them and tell them that they are wrong, that we can still read the Constitution, and that, according to the Constitution of the United States, there is in fact a check against judicial tyranny, and when they assert authority over subjects and in areas that the Constitution has barred to them and the federal government, then the representatives of the people can stand up and place a strong wall of separation--not between church and state, but between the courts and our liberty.

And the wonder of it is--and I know that there are some folks who say, "Well, we need a Constitutional amendment," and this and that. No, we don't. The wonder of it is that the legislation that's necessary by Congress in this case could be passed by majority vote, could be attached to an authorization bill or an appropriations bill with very simple wording. It could say, "In order to assure observance by the federal courts of the First Amendment to the Constitution according to its terms, Congress hereby excepts from the jurisdiction of the federal courts at every level all those matters which, by the conjoint effect of the First and Tenth Amendments, are reserved to the states respectively, and to the people."

And you'll notice there, I recommend those words or something like them, because I understand that some of the very wonderful folks who share our heart on these subjects, and they're writing legislation that targets the Ten Commandments or some other specific religious issue.

You know what the ACLU lawyers will do with that, don't you? They'll go to the First Amendment and they'll suddenly rediscover what it means. "Excuse me, y'all. It says, 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,' and this legislation mentions a religious view, a religious scripture, or a religious icon," whatever it might be. And then, "Gotta kick it out." And there'll be the courts saying, "Yep. Gotta kick it out," and there'll be everybody saying, "Gotta obey the courts."

No, we don't want to make that mistake. So, all Congress needs to do is look at the courts and say, "Obey the Constitution! The words are clear, and we demand in this legislation that you obey those words!" It's very simple.

Now, I've got to admit that if it were entirely up to me, I might put a little clause in there just making it clear that, though we're willing to forget sixty years of judicial abuse because some of those judges might have been misled by the long line of judicial precedents--read, "abuses"--that preceding them, we might make it clear, "We'll kinda exonerate you from blame for your past mistakes," but you put a little clause in there that says, "But just remember for future reference, that if you step across this boundary again, we will take that as necessary and sufficient evidence to impeach you and remove you from the bench."

That'll get it done. That'll take care of it. And just think of it, the wonderful thing about our Constitution is that when our rights are trespassed, if we notice it soon enough, no revolution is necessary, just a little law. Passed by who? Passed by the people we have chosen to represent us, who have an obligation to stand firm in defense of our rights.

And personally, that's what I would recommend, because I think it's time that we did away with the situation in which the ACLU gestapo and brownshirts can send their intimidating and threatening letters to folks who are only abiding by the will of the people of Barrow County.

I think it's time that we, all of us, got together in every county and in every state, and turned to those who represent us in Congress, in order to say, "The Constitution gives you the means. We now demand the action that will protect us from this tyranny."

I think, over the course of these decades, some have come to believe that this erosion and loss of our most precious and fundamental right to reverence God according to our hearts, that it has been lost to us. But see, that's the beauty of having a written Constitution. If they hadn't written it down, then it's quite obvious, by now, the people charged with remembering what it said would have twisted it all around and deprived us of our rights.

But the beauty of a written Constitution, the beauty of written laws in general, since the very first time they were inscribed on the stones in Rome and other ancient places, is that when push comes to shove, you don't have to depend upon the word of self-serving judges and lawyers, because you can go and look for yourself.

And once we have looked, once we have understood, then comes into play the most important relevance of the reason that brings us here--because there was a time when even knowing the truth, people in countries and places all over the world might nevertheless have hung their heads in fear and been intimidated to look up, and to look into the eyes of those who would despoil them of their rights and dignity.

But you see, we are Americans, and we have stood upon our feet, lo these 200 and more years, knowing that we can stand upon our feet and look in the eye any human power whatsoever, because our courage does not come from human power, it comes from Almighty God!

And as our forebears stood with courage in the fight for this nation's independence; as our forebears stood with courage in the fight against slavery, for human rights and dignity; as our forebears stood with courage to ensure that every citizen would have the vote; as our forebears stood with courage then to defend the rights of individuals, so we will stand with courage now to defend the rights of the people!

And with that courage, we will revive the true understanding of America's Constitution; with that courage, we will revive again the true spirit of American self-government--a spirit that understands that Lincoln was right. This is not government of the judges, by the ACLU, for the pocketbooks of the lawyers! This is government of the people, by the people, and for the people, and we have the courage to stand in its defense!

Standing so, we will secure that blessing of liberty which is above all the root of all the blessings, that blessing which gives us the right to fall upon our knees as a people, as we did on September 11th, knowing that there is no shame in it, when, as a people, through the voices and hearts of our leaders and through our own, we, in the midst of trouble, seek out the face of God. There is no shame in it, for it is right. And we here resolve, inspired by the leadership of these fine men and women, that we shall stand together with them, come what may, knowing, as our Founders did, that as we stand together for liberty, God will stand for us as we demand the right to honor and respect His name.