Posted on 03/30/2005 11:20:36 AM PST by churchillbuff
JOSEPH FARAH, HOST: We've got with us a special guest. Alan Keyes is back with us--diplomat, author, talk show host, brilliant orator, statesman, constitutional scholar. And his organization the Declaration Foundation can be accessed on the web at Declaration.net. Welcome to the program, Alan.
KEYES: Thank you. Glad to be with you.
FARAH: Well, you've got another great essay in WorldNetDaily today on this Terri Schiavo case. And in it you say that Florida Governor Jeb Bush is courting dereliction of duty. Tell us what you mean.
KEYES: Well, he has two responsibilities. One, to the Constitutional rights of Terri Schiavo, as clear and specific in the Florida Constitution, which states that she has the inalienable right--every natural person in Florida has the inalienable right--to enjoy and defend their life. And that, of course, is being violated.
Now, inalienable is very important in that phrase, because it has an undisputed meaning throughout our history. It means it can't be given away, and it can't be transferred to another by law. Now, Judge Greer has, in fact, transferred Terri Schiavo's right to life to her husband, Michael Schiavo, and in doing so has violated the clear and explicit language of the Florida constitution.
Jeb Bush, therefore, by his oath to protect, support, and defend the Florida constitution, is obliged to act to stop this damage to the constitution, this violation of rights. He's also now giving the impression that, some how or another, the governor of the state must submit to a county sheriff, if that county sheriff is ordered by a judge to do x, y, and z. That is a lie.
The constitution of Florida vests supreme executive power--that is, the highest executive authority--in the governor. No judge, no law, can create a higher executive authority than the governor, so nobody can say, "No," to him. The county sheriff cannot, if he goes to help Terri Schiavo, say, "No," because he is a lower authority--not by order of a judge or by order of any statute or law, but by order of the supreme law of Florida, which is the constitution.
If he does not do his duty and he pleads the judge's order, he has actually damaged the executive power in Florida, which has been entrusted to his hands. And by damaging it, he damages the constitution--and, therefore, derogates from his own authority and fails to do his duty.
So, on two counts, he is guilty of dereliction of duty if he does not act, and it is actually impeachable. When a governor does not do what the constitution and his oath require him to do, and as a result, the rights of an individual are damaged beyond repair, because she'll be dead, and his own authority as governor is damaged--not to mention that fact that the legislative authority has been impaired--then I think it's clear that he has failed to do his duty.
FARAH: You know, the interesting thing, Alan, is that Jeb Bush, Governor Jeb Bush in Florida, has shown really from the beginning in this case that he understands what's the right thing to do. He fought for Terri's Law. He told us just days before that hearing with Judge Greer late last week that his office had the power and the authority and the responsibility to rescue Terri Schiavo. He hinted that he was going to do it, and if we're to believe the press reports on what happened, he sent a few state law enforcement officers down there, and at the first sign of resistance by the county sheriffs, he told them to back off.
KEYES: Well, you see, that, I think, is even more damaging than anything, because if he leaves the impression that the governor has kowtowed to some county sheriff, he does immeasurable harm to the Florida constitution, to the authority of the governor, to peace and order, because, at the end of the day, the guarantee against civil disorder in Florida--where some sheriff or other authority would abuse his power--is that the governor will stop him.
And if he doesn't obey the governor, and takes arms, and the governor does nothing, he gives the impression that the government of Florida can no longer defend itself. And that, obviously, is a very dangerous impression to be giving at any time about any level of our government in this country, especially at the state and national level.
So, I think he is courting disaster here. He is the governor of Florida, one of the most important states in the union. He is setting a precedent that would be powerfully damaging to the public perception of gubernatorial authority throughout the country.
And I think that in addition to the fact that he has a moral obligation to protect the rights of Terri Schiavo and not to permit her judicial murder--the same one we would all recognize if a lynching was taking place across the street from the state house. Nobody would argue that he should sit there and watch somebody hang, even if by order of a racist judge, as happened in the past in this country, as we know.
Nobody would say that he should sit on his hands and let an innocent person be killed because he is afraid to do his duty. And that is what it amounts to here: the impression that is being given. And I think he needs to act decisively, in order to correct this impression--for Terri's sake, but also for the sake of constitutional self-government in America.
FARAH: Alan Keyes, you felt so strongly about this that you traveled down to Florida in an attempt to meet face to face with Governor Bush. What happened? Did you make any headway in meetings with his top officials?
KEYES: I tried my best. I met with his deputy chief-of-staff, eventually. I was not able to see his legal counsel. Though, Larry Klayman did see him, and Bill Greene did see him--or her, rather. It's a her in this case--Raquel Rodriquez. [They] did see her.
But Florida's constitution is actually very clear, both about the fact that the governor is the supreme executive authority. And, in Article 2, Section 3, it's very clear about the fact that the branches cannot exercise the authority of another branch.
So, the judge can have his opinion, but he cannot command executive force to put that opinion into force. That's the exclusively prerogative of the executive. If the judge, then, against the governor, tries to employ force, he's actually in insurrection. It's a judicial insurrection, and it's a very dangerous moment.
FARAH: We've all seen interviews with Jeb Bush on television and heard them on radio. He sounds like a genuinely conflicted man. He seems like a man who wants to do something and feels that he's being held back. What would have happened, in your humble opinion, if Jeb Bush didn't just dispatch some law enforcement officers from the state down to Pinellas County to rescue Terri, but actually went with them, in person, to meet face to face with the Pinellas County sheriff and explain the situation?
KEYES: I think that there would have been no doubt--the Pinellas County sheriff knows good and well that his authority does not trump the governor's authority, and that if he resists the governor's authority or tries to stop the governor, lay hands on his person or anything else, he can be arrested, he even be shot dead on the spot, because to move against the governor is to move against the government of Florida. It is basically an insurrectionary act, because in his person the governor represents the executive power of government. He is the only government authority, who, in his person, represents the power of a whole branch of government.
So, in that sense of the word, there is no doubt about what would have happened. The sheriff would have stepped aside, and would step aside right now. That's the whole point. And, if somebody is telling Jeb Bush something else, then it is because they are ignorant. They do not understand the constitutional situation, and they are giving him incompetent advice.
But I will say this, I went down to Florida precisely because I thought he needed to have the best possible arguments, the best possible advice, and even though I tried at several occasions, he apparently didn't want to hear this advice. So, I'm kinda sad about that, because if he wants to do the right thing, I have provided chapter and verse with extreme clarity, an argument that cannot, I think, be refuted in terms of his clear constitutional obligation and authority in this situation.
And not only did I do it in a brief article, so that everybody who had a few minutes could see the outline of it--in depth, as you know, on WorldNetDaily, I have published a background that goes chapter and verse into the constitutional arguments both in principle and in fact that buttress this case, and I think it's very clear.
It is also true, by the way, that from a point of view of politics, somebody suggested, "Well, they might impeach him." The legislature is the court that judges the governor, not the judiciary. His court where he is tried for misconduct and charged with misconduct is not the judges, not the supreme court of Florida. It's the legislature. And he is carrying out the legislature's will as, expressed in Terri's Law.
Now, some people say, "Well, the courts struck that down." No, they didn't strike it down. They refused to apply it.
But if the governor looks at it, and says, "No. This is constitutional, and I MUST apply it," then he is carrying out the will of the legislature--and together, the governor and the legislature trump the judiciary. The judiciary is not the supreme branch of government. It is an equal branch of government. It has a say, but it cannot have the ultimate say, or we would have a government that was no longer constitutional.
FARAH: You would think, with all the time that this case has occupied with the Florida State Legislature, the Supreme Court, the Governor, the U.S. Congress, the whole 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, the U.S. Supreme Court, that Jeb Bush would have taken a little bit of time to head that posse that went down to Pinellas County, just so that there would be no confusion. And for the life of me, I can't understand why he didn't do it. That would have been an act of leadership by the governor of Florida.
KEYES: I must say, and I say it in my little piece, Ronald Reagan would have done that. You and I both know it.
FARAH: Yep.
KEYES: Reagan would have seen this situation, he would have understood it, and he would have gone in person to make sure that it was done according to the Constitution, according to his gubernatorial authority, according to constitutional right and justice. And I think that is, I guess, the measure of the man, because these kinds of situations are the test. They show an individual in terms of that ultimate character that is needed to really stand with courage and conviction and strength in a way that will preserve our constitutional integrity.
FARAH: Alan Keyes, thanks so much for being with us. We'll be back with more after this.
So you're another freeper who thinks it's fine that a backwater probate judge can order local cops to resist the state child-protection agency, and the law enforcement agency of the governor, --- and nobody does or says anything about it? Ronald Reagan - who fired the PATCO union slackers without a second thought -- wouldn't have put up with this insurrection by "Judge" Greer.
I'm sorry, but Alan Keyes does not speak for Ronald Reagen. The man is dead, so its easy to ascribe opinions to him as he is not here to refute them.
Keyes and a number of folks on this forum are all wrong on this. Niether Bush could do anything to stop what has happened without committing an impeachable offense. Alan Keyes (and a bunch of FReepers) would suggest that the proper thing to do would be break the law, violate the constitution, get impeached and get booted out of office. Would Dr. Keyes do that? He talks a good game, but he wouldn't have the stones. Hell, he'd never have the chance because he would never have been in office in the first place. Alan Keyes is an unelecatble idealogue.
The fact is that sometimes bad things happen. And some times good men can do nothing (short of becoming the bad guy) to stop it. Its unfornuate, but it is what it is.
Should Jeb or W gone in at gunpoint and siezed Terri (ala Elian Gonzolez)? Gee. let's think about that one...how did FReepers react to that? Let's assume that they did it and set the precendent and 6 years hence, there is another battle, this time the judge sides with the parents and the spouse wants to pull the plug, and there are countless stories of how ths person is truly in a vegitative state and its well documented that she did not want to be kept alive... and President Clinton decides to send in the troops to take the person away and let her die /pull the plug. Well, if its OK for W or Jeb to do it now, you'd have no problem with Hillary doing that, right?
We complain about how the Clintons had no respect for the constitution or the rule of law when they did things... yet now, there are FReepers bitching about W and Jeb not haveing the "stones" to break the law; that they are wrongfully respecting the Constitution and the rule of law.
I think its terrible that she is going to die. I think that the husband may have caused her current condition. I think the husband is creepy...that he should not be involved given the fact that he's got kids with another woman and some of the crap he pulled... but the fact is that he has effectively used the courts and has the authority to do what he is doing. If you don't like it, work to change the system and change the laws.
I agree with Keyes.
I truly believe that President Reagan would have stepped in to stop this murder.
The Governor and the President have the authority and Pres. Reagan would have exercised his authority. He did, when he bombed the Libyan President Qaddafi. Congress passed an unjust law, not to target the heads of State that were our enemies. We could only wage war, not target the sadistic dictators. Reagan said he was targeting something else, but everyone knew Omar Qaddafi was his real target.
The law was passed after the rumors that Kennedy had the CIA assassinate Diem in South Vietnam, our ally, not our enemy. Reagan could see through the unjust law Congress past that tied our hands against people like Qaddafi and acted. He acted quickly and decisively in Grenada too.
Pres. Reagan was a practical man, He would have helped Terri.
Eisenhower sent the federal troops into the South to protect the civil rights of people. I believe he also would have done something to protect Terri's civil right to life.
That's true, but he hasn't done it yet. Instead, he's allowed a backwater probate judge to mount an insurrection against a state agency and state law enforcers. Outrageous.
My disappointment over this current Bush is his handling of the border crisis, I'm not really sure what he or Reagan as president could do or have done. As governor though Reagan in California probably would have handled it differently than Jeb. He was of a totally different political breed.
You're right. Reagan's actions speak for Ronald Reagan. And the man who fired the insubordinate PATCO union slackers, wouldn't have allowed a county judge to deploy local police against a state agency and state law-enforcers. That's a rebellion, and Reagan wouldn't have stood for it.
They are all self-proclaimed and practicing pro-lifers. Actually maybe it is Conservatives against Republicans. [I don't know what Terry is, anybody?]
No, you're just an anti-war Bush-basher.
But I'm not going to bite. You are a Republican basher to your very core.
If you want to know my opinion, I suggest you look at my posts (or my tagline). And I know you care what I think. Everyone does.
It looks that way. I doubt that he understands the situation the way Keyes does. He's uncertain about what to do, so he goes with the status quo. Sad. But this demonstrates the importance of understanding and adhering to principles.
Psst, Reagan actually signed legislation legalizing a orm of abortion in California as Governor.
So far, most of the conservative minds I respect agree that the Bush brothers exhausted their power in this matter.
Several of them are attorneys.
You are on solid ground.
Morris' comment was what HE thought Reagan thought, not something based on an actual conversation. Since that autobiography has been discredited by just about everyone as being full of Morris' weird perceptions, I am amazed Morris is suddenly the authority on what Reagan thought of Bush 41.
Few people remember that Bush 41 had a Republican House and Senate, that they threatened to freeze the military budget during Desert Shield if he didn't raise taxes, and did it with the full intention of hammering him with it in the next election, aided and abetted by people like you.
You are always trying to alienate people from the President. You are the same person who said he was a war criminal.
Furthermore, since Keyes almost ocmpletely discredited himself in the Illinois senate race, I see no reason I should care about anything he says. He is nothing but a bomb-thrower who preys on gullible conservatives for cash.
No, you're just an anti-war Bush-basher.
The only reason Chamberlainbuff cares about this issue is because it gives him another chance to bash the President. I guarantee that if the President had violated the rule of law in this matter Neville would be the one crying loudest for impeachment.
I looked at your posts, and we're on the same page re. Judge Greer and impeachment ---- though "accepting hearsay evidence" wasn't legally forbidden; the pro-euthanasia forces in the LEgislature changed the law in the late 1990s to allow that. What Greer did that was wrong was say that the evidence was "clear and convincing" that Terri would want her feeding tube pulled. In actual fact, the evidence - even when the hearsay stuff was included - was and is ambiguous. the law requires that it be "clear and convincing," so Greer was ignoring the law when he ordered her death.
PATCO does not apply here. That was a business issue that affected the national economy. Firing the Air Traffic controllers was a labor issue. There is nothing that you can show me that would indicate that it was an ultra vires action on the part of Reagan. The Shiavo case isn't that simple. Reagan had firm beliefs, but he also respected the office of the Presidency, the Constitution and the Rule of Law. He would not have thrown those principles out the window. Unless you can show me a case on point, don't say that Reagan would have done it.
I don't blame him for complaining, actually. The family grieving the slow, gruesome death. The new nazi movment of our country undercover. And Keyes is convinced she can be saved. What's he supposed to do? Shut mouth and sit down?
Do you realise how much criticism Keyes could have been ranting about prior to this mess? He's been holding back for the good of the country. But where's School Choice? Where's the National Endowment of the Arts defunding? Where's the National Sales Tax? Drilling in the Gulf? If he were on the soap box over those issues, Bush would deserve it.
It does apply, because it showed that Reagan had courage to stir things up, in defense of his prerogatives as chief executive. Jeb's prerogatives as chief executive have been challenged by a local judge who has usurped executive power. So far, he's gotten away with it.
If a judge ordered a lynching, and the governor said he couldn't interfere with a court order, would you be OK with that -- as long as the governor was a Republican?
This is from a speech Reagan delivered in 1983. Did he do anything but call this tragic?
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.