Thanks for the response. Here are my principles and facts on the matter, which I gain are also the good doctor's:
1. This acceptance of the IL GOP invitation to run for US Senate, is utterly, thoroughly, and in black and white, federally constitutional. It is an act according to both the spirit and letter of the law, after all other options are judged by a nominating body of a state to be inadequate, for someone from out of state to accept the invitation of that body.
2. As Dr. Keyes has demonstrated as well as explained, just as at the time Ft. Sumter was fired upon, there arise issues and causes that reach beneath the Constitution and into the very raison detre for our nation, expressed in our Declaration.
"Among these," are our most primal individual and corporate rights. Of individual primacy is that we are all living human beings created to live under God's "natural" law. Of foundational corporate primacy is that we are a nation, rather than a collection of independent states. It just so happens that by Article 10, our nation leaves those powers not granted by the People to Federal Government, to individual People and their states.
We must not confuse a primal right or responsibility, upon which our nation is created, with the nationally granted powers (that is, those powers granted by our nation, once our nation was already founded).
If, for primal issues of our most basic human rights and responsibilities, we cannot find our footing deeper than our Constitional "first floor," within the "foundational" responsibilities and rights of the Declaration of Independence, then we will one day be forced to find it in the one Declared corporate right/responsibility laying deeper yet: the replacement of our nation's foundation, by creating a yet newer nation, separated from its unbearable former tyranny.
If murder is not unbearable, what is?
If the deconstructionist denial of meaning, by redefinition of the word for our most basic societal contract (marriage) is not ontologically and epistemologically unbearable, what is?
This argument very much reminds me of those I've had in FR who believe Lincoln was an unconstitutional tyrant. ;-)
Alan Keyes principles in this are expressed in his acceptance speech, linked to at the bottom of http://www.unspun.info/supportkeyes
1 - This is in clear and obvious violation of the intent of the Constitution, if they wanted anybody to be able to run for office anywhere why did they put a residency clause in the Constitution in the first place?
2 - If you really believed 1 you wouldn't make point 2. If you feel this follows the intent of the Constitution why talk about reaching below the Constitution? And even if 2 was valid, this is not one of those times. keyes is going to lose, he's going to lose badly, and even if he won, 1 Senator isn't goiung to change anything.
Keyes could have done more good campaigning in Illinois. His single issue is a non-starter. There's no reason to give somebody six years in an elected office for one issue, and too many people don't like single issue candidates, and now that he's violated his own principles there's no reason to believe he'll actually stand by his single issue. He violated the intent of the Constitution, he violated his own stated principles, he is no longer to be trusted. If lying is not unbearable what is? And that's what Keyes did, he made himself a liar.