00952e7e   
   XPost: alt.politics.usa, alt.politics.usa.constitution   
   From: none@none.com   
      
   On 7/5/2012 10:09 AM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:   
   > On Jul 5, 12:33 pm, Peter Franks  wrote:   
   >> 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.   
   >   
   > Thus, your argument that judicial review was needed to keep the   
   > legislators who passed the law at stake in Wickard from booted does   
   > not hold, and therefore Congress would have established its power to   
   > regulate purely intrastate activity had there not been judicial review.   
      
   One case forms the entire basis of your argument?   
      
   Weak, bro, weak...   
      
   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.   
      
   It doesn't happen with a single instance, but judicial review, over   
   time, legitimizes unjust legislation.   
      
   I argue that the citizenry would eventually recognize and stop the   
   unjust legislation.   
      
   You argue that ...  well, what exactly are you arguing here?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)