The Sketch Effect
By: Guest Authors
By: Jim Byrd
An artist sketches a young subject. During the session, the artist engages in conversation with the subject, observes the subject’s mannerisms, and develops a sense of the subject’s personality. The finished work not only encompasses the physical exactness of the subject, but includes the artist’s incorporation of the subject’s characteristics as well.
The original sketch is passed along to another artist to be duplicated. The second artist renders a final sketch based upon the first sketch, but, without being witness to the characteristics of the original subject, projects their depiction of the subject’s personality into the sketch. This process is repeated until the tenth artist completes their sketch.
When the original sketch is compared to the tenth sketch, the similarities are vague and the tenth sketch has taken on the aura of a caricature of the first sketch. Yet when the tenth artist is asked to sketch the original subject under the same circumstances as the first artist, without knowledge of who the subject is, the sketch completed by the tenth artist of the original subject only has a vague similarity to the tenth artist’s original sketch.
The Sketch Effect is an allegorical depiction of the erosion of the authentic meaning of the Constitution and the perpetual reinterpretation of interpretation by agenda driven law schools, lawyers, judges, and the Supreme Court. The legal education one receives from contemporary law schools is sadly just a study in case method. The student examines and contemplates contaminated judicial decisions that have no relevance to their original meaning in the Constitution and are historically out of context. With knowledge and skills limited to case law and the agenda driven slant of law professors, the student is ill-equipped to discern the constitutionality of an opinion, a law, or statute. Harvard, Yale, Columbia, et al, have become an assembly line of law school diploma mills that have produced constitutional anarchist such as Clinton, Obama, current Supreme Court justices Ginsberg, Souter, and Breyer, the perpetually benighted A.C.L.U., and others. Though the schools are generally ranked as the best law schools in the nation, the honor is gratuitously extolled by an incestuous hierarchy, even though law students are taught an agenda driven rendering of the constitution.
The law studied circa the Constitution was, even at that point, historical in nature. The aggregate foundation of the Constitution is based on Natural Law, and the expounding disquisitions of Blackstone, Locke, and Montesquieu among others.
There are generally two terms used to describe the judges of today– liberal and conservative. These two descriptions would better summarize the political tableau of the U.S. than its judges. The terms liberal and conservative are problematic terms for veraciously describing judges–especially Supreme Court justices. The terms liberal and conservative cannot accurately be used to assay the constitutional disposition a law student will leave their school in possession of.
The term liberal does not describe why a school of law will teach select case law, to further their agenda, rather than the Constitution and its original meaning in an accurate historical context. The term liberal does not accurately describe the reason a judge will flagrantly rule contrary to the Constitution, nor why lawyers will passionately pursue cases, in such a manner as to pervert the constitution if the outcome is favorable to their cause. In contrast, the term conservative does not best describe why a judge will rule following the Constitution to the best of their knowledge as to its original intent and do so without an agenda. A more definitive description in the stead of liberal or conservative judge would be to replace the term liberal with constitutional anarchist and conservative with constructionist. The only concessionary middle ground would be the application of the Constitution, adjusted for unforeseen advancements in society, yet keeping the core meaning intact. Justice O’Connor, before her retirement, and currently Justice Kennedy, were, and are, considered swing votes on the Supreme Court. Sometimes they ruled as a constructionist and sometimes they ruled as anarchists–the two cannot be reconciled and repackaged as moderate. Neither label would apply, they are unreliable justices. They seemed to rule as a constructionist at times until an agenda was presented they wanted to further.
Without delving into the Supreme Court’s original intent or Marshall’s redefining the court’s role in judicial review, we shall follow the generally accepted knowledge that when a case is accepted by the Supreme Court, the Court should rule as to whether or not the case before them passes constitutional muster. It has been generally accepted, since the Marshall Court, that the Supreme Court is the omnipresent mediator of the Constitution. The Court will decide cases of fundamental and, occasionally statutory law. This is the generally accepted role of the Court’s purpose by the populace.
One illustrated example of the effects of the Sketch Effect is the lawsuit filed by Yale law students against the city of Danbury, Conn. The heart of the case is whether or not a city can create and enforce immigration laws.
The Danbury police arrested several illegal aliens at a day labor area within the city of Danbury. To manifest the method of emaciated constitutional law being taught at Ã¼ber liberal law schools, in this case, Yale, one of the banal legal lackeys from Yale did an interview on a television news program concerning the Danbury case she was involved in. She rambled on, with fustian enthusiasm, about various and selective case law that would support the plaintiff’s position. Although asked, she was incapable of answering one question directed to her about the constitutionality of the case’s defense based on the actual Constitution. She demonstrated, that not only had she been intellectually incapacitated in regards to the Constitution, but was unable to escape the boundaries set by the case method of law she had been taught at Yale.
The heart of immigration law can be encapsulated by two points of contention: One is a from the 14th amendment, section 1, the first sentence: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. The other is: Do the state and its municipalities have the authority to make and enforce immigration law. The perverse interpretation of …under the jurisdiction of… by the Supreme Case of Plyler v. Doe in 1982, has given this country the ominously and inequitable financial albatross by way of abused birth right citizenship, or in the more commonplace vernacular–anchor babies. The case that the Yale law school students brought against the city of Danbury consisted of who has the authority to create and enforce immigration law and the preposterously innumerable rights violations of the arrested illegal aliens levied against the city of Danbury.
After a year of wasting the court’s time with the student’s silly project, a Federal Judge, rightfully so, dismissed the case.
Where does that place Barack Obama, who taught Constitutional law, albeit historically iniquitous? It exposes him as an extreme constitutional anarchist. He truly believes that Justices Stephen G. Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David H. Souter are the epitome of Constitutional law. He stated concerning these three, “I want people on the bench who have enough empathy, enough feeling, for what ordinary people are going through.” He has also expanded on what he believes the role the Supreme Court should be:
I taught constitutional law for 10 years, and . . . when you look at what makes a great Supreme Court justice, it’s not just the particular issue and how they rule, but it’s their conception of the Court. And part of the role of the Court is that it is going to protect people who may be vulnerable in the political process, the outsider, the minority, those who are vulnerable, those who don’t have a lot of clout.
Sometimes we’re only looking at academics or people who’ve been in the lower court. If we can find people who have life experience and they understand what it means to be on the outside, what it means to have the system not work for them, that’s the kind of person I want on the Supreme Court.
We need somebody who’s got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it’s like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it’s like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that’s the criteria by which I’m going to be selecting my judges.
Barack Obama seems to have the job description of a social worker confused with the role of a Supreme Court justice. Perhaps Obama believes the country would be better off if the Supreme Court were substituted with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals–the most overturned court in the U.S. history. His sophomoric ideas of what should constitute the character of a Supreme Court justice has crossed the threshold of absurdity and landed in the iron clutches of adolescence ignorance. He believes the Supreme Court should be the protector of the vulnerable, regardless of de jure; regardless of right or wrong; regardless of the Constitution v. empathy, heart, poor, disabled, African-American, gay, or old. The Supreme Court’s role is to protect the constitutional rights of anyone–rich, poor, vulnerable, powerful, etc. Once again, Barack Obama has demonstrated his lack of intelligence, and in this instance, his chosen field.
Indulge in a moment of fantasy and imagine the A.C.L.U., transported back in time, with the purpose of arguing, in the early 1800′s, before the Marshal or Taney court the unconstitutional merits of why the Ten Commandments should not be displayed in a courthouse or government building in the United States. The hilarity of the dialog and arguments between the A.C.L.U. and the court would be bountiful. There is no reason to even speculate on the verdict. The plaintiff’s attorneys would be remarkably ill-equipped with their ideology of what they believe the Constitution should have said. And their, generally, irrelevant case law in regards to the Constitution. And too short a time span after the ratification of the Constitution for them to argue with their perverse interpretation of what the authors actually meant, as opposed to what they actually stated when writing the Constitution, to a court that would not have the comportment to listen to their nonsense–even with the inclusion of Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists in 1815 discussing the separation of church and state.
In expanding what William F. Buckley said about Harvard: I’d rather entrust the government of the United States to the first 400 people listed in the Boston telephone directory than to the faculty of Harvard University. You could take the first 400 people of the Boston telephone directory, put them in an environment for one year where they only studied, without supervision, Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Law, Locke’s Two Treatises of Government, Polybius’ The Rise of the Roman Empire, and Montesquieu’s Spirit of the Laws and Science of Politics, the United States Constitution along with its Amendments and the arguments and minutes of the authors, federal acts that evolved into amendments (i.e. the 1866 Civil Rights Act), The Federalist Papers. After one year of study, void of reading any constitutional case law, the class would be better equipped, not withstanding courtroom protocol, to argue a case in front of the Supreme Court concerning constitutional law, than the entire staff of Yale or Harvard.
Take a hard look at what Barack Obama believes would make a good Supreme Court justice and what he believes the role of the Supreme Court should be, then try and reconcile it with reality. Couple that with the scandalous and anti-American confidants he has surrounded himself with since embarking on his political odyssey. Imagine the makeup and character of his cabinet he will surround himself with, and the 2000 some odd appointments, including many federal judges, he will pick in the course of his tenure. Just imagine.