Posted on 01/08/2007 12:04:31 PM PST by EternalVigilance
Audio of this speech:
http://www.renewamerica.us/news/070108concord_mp3.htm
Dr. Keyes:
I remember participating in the sad and willful tragedy of Terri Schiavo in Florida, and going down there and talking to folks and trying to get in to see Jeb Bush. He wouldn't talk to me. He sent out his legal adviser to chat with me--young fellow who scoffed at the idea that the Federalist Papers had anything worth considering in them. That's sad, isn't it?
But why did I want to talk to Jeb Bush? Because I wanted to explain to him that he was in an especially favored position in Florida. The constitution of Florida actually states explicitly that every citizen of Florida shall have an unalienable right to life. Unalienable. Isn't that wonderful? Even the Constitution of the United States isn't that explicit in terms of quoting the Declaration of Independence.
Unalienable means that you can't give it away, and it can't be taken away. Often we remember the second part. You can't take it away, but it also means that you can't give it away. It is literally a word taken from the old aristocratic privileges that attached to rank--so that when you became a duke, there were certain lands and then pertinences that attached to the dukedom, and though you could buy and sell land on your own account as a private person, you could not sell the land that attached to the title. It was unalienable. It could not be given away to another.
We are considered under our regime to have unalienable rights as an endowment--the word again used--from Almighty God. We cannot give up those rights. That is a restriction. That is a discipline upon us in the name of our liberty. And that, of course, means that some judge cannot transfer it to another party.
I tried, I wanted to explain to Jeb Bush that what all that means is that the constitution of Florida forbids the judge from transferring the right to life from Terri Schiavo to her husband or anybody else. Can't be done. Can't happen. He didn't want to hear it. Why? Well, because that would have implied, given his oath of office, that he could not allow that decision to go forward.
See, the governors and the president--the executives in this country--they too take an oath of office to preserve, uphold, protect, defend, support the Constitution of the United States and their state. Like the judges, if they see a conflict between what is demanded of them and what is their constitutional duty, they are to follow the constitution, not the demand.
If that is true of the judges, and I believe it is--I will give them that right. When the judge is sitting on a particular case and he conscientiously believes that some element of the law in front of him is in contradiction with the Constitution, he must follow the Constitution which embodies the more permanent will of the people. That's a true argument. Hamilton made that argument in Federalist 78. I think it's correct. It's logical. It's clear.
But just as it is clear of the judges, so it is clear of the governors and of the president. And if a judge demands that a president or an executive in this country does that which is contrary to his oath and obligation to the constitution of this nation or his state, then that governor is required and obliged to his oath not to say, "Yes," but to say, "No." If he does anything else, then he does not uphold the law, he destroys the constitutional system which is for us the foundation of all legitimate law. And when Jeb Bush failed to intervene on behalf of Terri Schiavo, he betrayed his oath.
Another egregious case exists just to the south of y'all here. Mitt Romney is now pretending to run for president of the United States as a pro-family, pro-life candidate. I hear the chuckles in the room. I would chuckle, too, except for the tragedy that there are actually people believing him. It is a laugh when somebody does that, which is ridiculous. It is a tragedy when others purporting to be of good sense and decency follow that individual. Some are trying.
When you look at the Massachusetts case, though, two things are true. First, it is actually true under the decision that was made by the court in Massachusetts that no change in the law was affected or even by pretense affected by their decision. They simply sent it back to the legislature and said, "You must re-write the law."
Now, you and I would recognize, wouldn't we, that the judges don't have that right. The judges can refuse to apply a part of a law or refuse to take an action which they believe is contrary to the higher law of the constitution. That they can do. They cannot dictate to the legislature what is to be in the law. For by that dictation, they make themselves into the legislature, and that would violate the separation of powers.
So, the Massachusetts court was trying to do what it has no constitutional right to do. And it is proper and indeed it is necessary in such a case for the legislature and for the executive, joining forces, to turn to the judge and say, "No, there is no law and no provision of the constitution that supports your unlawful demand." If they do anything else, then they have destroyed the law by destroying the constitutional basis for law in our society. And that is what has happened in Massachusetts.
I go through this because, to the crisis of our moral sovereignty, we must add this crisis of our constitution's sovereignty--a crisis that represents, my friends, not just a little fight between the branches, but an entire change in the nature of our form of government. As long as this supremacy, the so-called supremacy of the judiciary, persists, we do not have a republic that is based upon the self-government of the people. We have, instead, an oligarchy based upon the dictatorship of the few. That change has already occurred. And the question is, shall we work to restore our republic or shall we sit quietly by while it is destroyed?
Now, sadly, the answer to question number two about our constitutional sovereignty actually depends on how well we address the first problem, which is the assault on our moral sovereignty. And I say this advisedly to y'all today. Why? Because I think that sometimes we have a tendency to act as if the Constitution of the United States is just about institutions or just about arrangements on paper somewhere--and we forget, don't we, that the founders themselves told us quite clearly that the Constitution can only work if the individuals who man the posts under the Constitution have the necessary character, vision, understanding, and moral courage to make it work.
What does this mean? It means that if you destroy moral courage, the moral character of the people and its leadership, then you effectively destroy the Constitution.
And this is not an academic point! What is it that kept Jeb Bush from doing what his oath required? What is it that kept Mitt Romney from doing what his oath required? What is it that keeps our legislatures in the Congress and in Massachusetts and elsewhere from doing what is required to stand up to abusive judges who make themselves into our dictators? It is a lack of moral courage. It is a lack of understanding. It is the result of decades of mis-education and destruction in our schools and through our films and, in every respect, in our way of life. The moral collapse of the nation bears fruit in the paucity of moral vigor in its leadership, and the two combine to the ultimate destruction of the republic.
Exactly! I still love Keyes.
bump for reading later
Me too. There's no one else like him.
Point to notice. Alan Keyes was in the running for the presidency a few years ago. The media did not jump up and down and bounce off the walls over his candidacy. The media IGNORED IT.
Now. There's the Barack Obama guy who plays with the idea of being president. The media is flying from floor to ceiling, from wall to wall, rolling over, laughing and giggling over his candicacy.
What's the difference?
Two black men of quality, with personality, intelligent, well spoken, used to talking in complete grammatical sentences. Keyes is a conservative Catholic. I don't know what Obama is.
So all the media hype over "First black president" is a farce, a joke, and a fraud. They really aren't interested in having a black president. They could have had one 8 years ago. It's about using white guilt to get a liberal (Obama) elected.
and I guess three children--maybe not there anymore"
Nice dig at the speaker before he gets up....well, at least he didn't mention Keyes' Borat appearance.
It isn't widely reported, but Keyes didn't take but a couple of minutes to figure out that the guy was a fraud. "Borat" handed him a bone, and said that it was the "bone of a Jew." Keyes immediately got up and walked out.
Good stuff. Thanks for posting.
You bet.
ping for later
Thanks for the ping.
YW.
The Doctor is in bump!
Your excerpt is wonderful evidence of Keyes' brilliance. Especially:
We have, instead, an oligarchy based upon the dictatorship of the few. That change has already occurred. And the question is, shall we work to restore our republic or shall we sit quietly by while it is destroyed? sometimes we have a tendency to act as if the Constitution of the United States is just about institutions or just about arrangements on paper somewhere--and we forget, don't we, that the founders themselves told us quite clearly that the Constitution can only work if the individuals who man the posts under the Constitution have the necessary character, vision, understanding, and moral courage to make it work.
What does this mean? It means that if you destroy moral courage, the moral character of the people and its leadership, then you effectively destroy the Constitution.
I have heard Keyes speak in person on two occasions: once at our local Republican Committee banquet when he was seeking the republican nomintation for president, and once at a Constitution Party seminar, entitled 'The Biblical Foundations of American Law,' in Lancaster, several years later.
Both times I left his presence with the knowledge that this is a man who is immovable in his beliefs, and that his beliefs both reflect and revere those of our Founders. Which makes Alan Keyes an anomaly in modern American politics, and which also, unfortunately, bars him from higher office, because he posseses the very character, vision, understanding, and moral courage that he asserts are leadership prerequisites necessary to preserve the Constitution, but the American people no longer see them as such.
Thanks for providing the excerpt. Did my heart good to read it!
~ joanie
I knew you'd like it. You're someone who is of the same heart and mind as Dr. Keyes.
Bump for tomorrow.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.