XPost: alt.politics.usa, alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: none@none.com

On 7/4/2012 7:23 PM, Josh wrote:
> On 7/4/2012 9:49 PM, Peter Franks wrote:
>> On 7/4/2012 4:10 PM, Josh wrote:
>>> On 7/4/2012 6:36 PM, Peter Franks wrote:
>>>> On 7/4/2012 2:59 PM, Josh wrote:
>>>>> On 7/4/2012 4:39 PM, Peter Franks wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If it weren't for judicial review, the law couldn't even have been
>>>>>>> challenged.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Without judicial review, the law wouldn't have been enacted in the
>>>>>> first
>>>>>> place.
>>>>>
>>>>> How's that?
>>>>
>>>> "Wickard thus establishes that Congress can regulate purely intrastate
>>>> activity..."
>>>
>>> Without judicial review, Wickard would have never been a court case and
>>> the law at stake would be on the books - which too would have
>>> established that Congress can regulate purely intrastate activities.
>>
>> Really, how can Congress establish its powers?
>
> Without judicial review, simply by enacting a law and having the
> Executive branch enforce it.

No.

If it does, the legislators would likely be booted from office during
the following election.

Judicial review 'legitimizes' (for lack of a better word) unjust
legislation.  Unjust legislation is then perceived as constitutional,
and slowly becomes accepted.  In the end, you end up with a nation based
on unjust legislation that is supposedly constitutionally sound.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
 * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)