In looking at the literature it seems there is a controversy over judicial review and how to handle the ramifications or the mechanics of so doing....One is the political argument, or that politics often overrules the court able or willing to do the job. If the legislature is against said review then there is the political problem, therefore the Constitution must or theoretically, is left unprotected, without action. How often has the court really gone against the body of legislature? That is a question. Often the popularity or public opinion is sought yet the precedent of Marbury v. Madison to actually define the role of each power of government so that this wouldn't be an overriding theme versus the separation of powers or that a mob mentality does not overtake the freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution. Many are against Roe v. Wade yet the law takes into account Due Process Law and the complexities of the 14th amendment and fine points. One reasons the original writers of the Constitution decided these major factors as the construction of a Constitution was to make sure from a biological point of view that the species maintain an edge on the evolutionary process or business going forward! |
