"Rational basis" review is a kind of judicial review of a constitutional challenge in court, basically under the equal protection clause of the 14th or (as implied) the fifth amendment.
This is a different issue from the scope of the legislative power, which is "plenary," essentially unbounded, meaning the legislature can act on virtually any cockamamie grounds they like, State legislatures particularly, unless barred by the state or federal Constitution or other federal law. The U.S. Congress may also if permitted under the constitution or federal case law. Legislation doesn't even have to have a rational basis unless it treats different classes of people differently -- a law that applies to everyone doesn't even need that. And almost everything has a rational basis in that the Court can think of some reason someone who wasn't smoking crack might want to do it (in the real world the effective standard). Unlike Shane I think that is a good thing; the Courts are too interfering in legislative matters rather than not interfering enough. Basides, even Shane wouldn't especially like the direction of the interference the current Courts would be likely to impose if they got even more involved than they are.
The reason the courts don't butt into foreign affairs is generally not standing (lack of a live dispute especially and uniquely affecting the parties), which is a defect in the litigants' position. Rather it's "justiability" and the "political question doctrine," the doctrine that the courts don't have jurisdiction over, among other things, "political" rather than legal questions or matters specifically given by the text of the Constitution (or long and unopposed practice) to another branch, and the Constitution gives the power to direct military affairs to the Executive and the power to declare war or fund it (or not) to Congress -- not that Congress uses that power.
Unlike Shane I think it is a good thing that the courts don't try to run foreign and military policy. If anything is a political question that should be left to democratic decision and controlled ultimately by the legislature, it's whether to go to war. Which leaves the ball with us, to make the legislature and the executive behave.
--- Shane Mage <shmage at pipeline.com> wrote:
> Justin wrote:
> >
> >Cases, yes, you need standing (real live
> controversy,
> >actual or imminent injury caused by defendant,
> about
> >which the court can do something) to sue. Laws, no
> --
> >they can cover any cockamamie hypothetical
> situation a
> >legislative body can dream up.
>
> "any cockamamie hypothetical situation a legislative
> body can dream up."
> The precise definition of "rational grounds," the
> phrase used by lawyers
> in black gowns to enforce any statutory restrictions
> on freedom they
> wish to keep in effect (whenever, that is, they
> can't use the "standing"
> dodge to avoid even the pretense of "judging"
> governmental abuses
> like the unconstitutional Iraq war).
>
> Shane Mage
>
> "This cosmos did none of gods or men make, but it
> always was and is
> and shall be: an everlasting fire, kindling in
> measures and going out
> in measures."
>
> Herakleitos of Ephesos, fr. 30
> ___________________________________
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
____________________________________________________________________________________ 8:00? 8:25? 8:40? Find a flick in no time with the Yahoo! Search movie showtime shortcut. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/shortcuts/#news