When a law is questioned, it goes before judicial review. It’s part of the checks and balances within the American democracy.
According to Missouri State University professor Dr. Edwin Carawan, judicial review is very similar to the legislative process of ancient Greece – at least on the surface.
“We’re guided by the rule of law. There’s a certain automaticity to the way things work,” he said. “If you think there’s something wrong with the law, you bring suit, and it will go to the court.”
Carawan, a professor of classical languages, is writing a book comparing and contrasting the U.S. procedure with the Athenians’.
He originally assumed the book would highlight the similarities. But through his research of historic speeches and court decisions, he found several differences from our modern system.
“To boil it down, in our own system, we think of the Supreme Court’s decision in a judicial review case as a second opinion — a second opinion and that sense of a superior expertise.
“It looks like what the Athenians were doing was really more like a second chance,” he added. “It was believed that any important decision needs to be made twice. There’s a lot of ancient testimony to that idea.”