home bbs files messages ]

Forums before death by AOL, social media and spammers... "We can't have nice things"

   talk.politics.medicine      talk.politics.medicine      20,955 messages   

[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]

   Message 19,102 of 20,955   
   Peter Franks to Josh   
   Re: We Blame George W. Bush! ObamaCare s   
   05 Jul 12 09:33:53   
   
   XPost: alt.politics.usa, alt.politics.usa.constitution   
   From: none@none.com   
      
   On 7/4/2012 7:59 PM, Josh wrote:   
   > 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)?   
      
   No.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)   

[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]


(c) 1994,  bbs@darkrealms.ca