I don't think the American experience with constitutionalism is as unremittingly awful as you suggest. I think there are specific problems with our Constitution, but not mainly connected with judicial review. The worst problem is the 2-member a state Senate, which entrenches reactionary rural interests in legislative power. We now see that the Electoral College can bite us too--1876 wasn't the last time. As for extravagances of judicial review on constitutional grounds, I think which way that cuts depends on the total political balance of forces in a way that would affect legislative supremacy just as badly. If the left were as a weak as it is and we had legislative supremacy, the right would do through the legislature what it also does through the courts.
>I will admit that I have become much less ennamored of a
>Constitution from when I was younger and law school just accellerated that
>process as I watched all sorts of eager judge-wannabees talking about all
>the ways they would overrule the democratic process to save people from the
>supposed stupidity of the voters. This is an empirical issue- here at Yale
>I am at ground central for the supply of federal clerks writing opinions
>those who will become judges in the future. And the thought of these
>having that power horrifies me. And I am not talking just about the
>cosnervative folks wanting to write law and economics into the
>but the liberals who see their own social preferences as natural law. The
>contempt for average people, whether in juries or in legislatures, that
>through the legal elite is truly awe-inspiring.
. . .
>The theory of constitutionalism has great appeal, but the practice in the
>United States has been mostly a failure at best and a reactionary tyranny
>worst - and more commonly.
>-- Nathan Newman
_________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com