ecfac7ec   
   XPost: alt.politics.usa, alt.politics.usa.constitution   
   From: none@none.com   
      
   On 7/5/2012 10:58 AM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:   
   > On Jul 5, 1:42 pm, Peter Franks  wrote:   
   >> 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?   
   >   
   > If we were debating the general principle, in some instances you might   
   > be write, and in others you might be wrong.  But, we were debating my   
   > assertion that *in this case* "[i]f it weren't for judicial review,   
   > the law couldn't even have been challenged" and your rebuttal   
   > "[w]ithout judicial review, the law wouldn't have been enacted in the   
   > first place.   
      
   Go back to Marbury and throw out judicial review.  I think that there is   
   a good chance that Wickard would have never happened.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)