Trackback URL (right click and copy shortcut/link location)

I think having judicial review of a bill prior to being signed into law is an exceptionally bad idea and would set a poor precedent.

This would overwhelm the judiciary and shift power from the legislative to the judicial branch thereby upsetting the checks and balances necessary for good governance, even on a state level.

Indeed, even in such cases as the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Act and the clearly unconstitutional Affordable Health Care Act, these bills would or at least should have been declared null and void under judicial review before they ever became laws, under this precedent.

Now members of the legislature should know better and not put forth bills for an executive signature when they know they are contrary to the state or federal constitutions.

That said, when such an egregious bill is signed into law, THEN is the time to issue an immediate challenge in court to undo it.

The checks and balances of the supposedly co-equal branches of government is sent into a possible constitutional conundrum otherwise, not that our elected representatives really pay any heed to the constitution anymore though, whether on the state or federal levels.
03/30/11 @ 08:45

Leave a comment


Your email address will not be revealed on this site.

Your URL will be displayed.
(Line breaks become <br />)
(Name, email & website)
(Allow users to contact you through a message form (your email will not be revealed.)
« Representative in Congress Complains About His SalaryTeutonic Efficiency: Honk and STOP in One Motion »