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)