yes dawsig, but you know as well as I do that your state's statutes exist as legal only because they fail to distinguish between the sexes engaging in the act.
The Texas discriminatory statute was the door opener to the equal protection argument of homosexuals.
martinguerre, in all fairness, I'm certain dawsig is well aware of marbury v. madison. he is an attorney, after all. and wouldn't be worth squat if he didn't
The thing I can't remember is whether the court came up with judicial review in regards to anything other than acts of congress. Of course, that whole fiasco was political and still contested as a properly reasoned legal argument. Brilliant, one could argue, but not particularly sound.
I don't quite remember if it provided the reasoning for judicial review of state enacted legislature, though. perhaps dawsig will post the info for me and save me digging through my past notes instead allowing me to work on my family & law section due next week