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