XPost: alt.politics.usa, alt.politics.usa.constitution   
   From: user@nowhere.com   
      
   On 7/4/2012 10:50 PM, Peter Franks wrote:   
   > 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.   
      
   Was the law at stake in Wickard unpopular with a majority of Americans   
   prior to the Court's ruling?  Did the Court's ruling change the law's   
   popularity (citations, please)?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)