▁he ▁intended ▁to ▁bring ▁such ▁a ▁suit , ▁the ▁legisl ation ▁or ▁dec ree ▁in ▁question ▁was ▁susp ended ▁until ▁the ▁matter ▁was ▁resolved . ▁The ▁thinking ▁was ▁that , ▁as ▁there ▁was ▁no ▁mechanism ▁in ▁Ath ens ▁for ▁un making ▁a ▁law , ▁any ▁new ▁law ▁should ▁not ▁be ▁in ▁contradiction ▁with ▁the ▁already ▁existing ▁laws . ▁ ▁The ▁suit ▁served ▁a ▁double ▁function . ▁First ly , ▁it ▁provided ▁a ▁means ▁of ▁review ing ▁and ▁perhaps ▁res c inding ▁decre es ▁and ▁legisl ation ▁passed ▁by ▁the ▁assembly . ▁In ▁this ▁it ▁seems ▁to ▁res emble ▁a ▁court ▁of ▁review ▁such ▁as ▁the ▁modern ▁U . S . ▁Supreme ▁Court . ▁However , ▁the ▁jud ges ▁( who ▁in ▁English ▁are ▁usually ▁referred ▁to ▁as ▁jur ors ) ▁of ▁the ▁jud icial ▁form ations ▁of ▁the ▁A then ian ▁court ▁of ▁Hel ia ia ▁were , ▁like ▁those ▁att ending ▁assembly , ▁ordinary ▁citizens ▁and ▁not ▁legal ▁exper ts , ▁just ▁as ▁the ▁court ▁used ▁was ▁a ▁general ▁one ▁and ▁not ▁a ▁panel ▁devoted ▁to ▁legisl ative ▁matters . ▁( J ur ors , ▁it ▁is ▁true , ▁had ▁a ▁slightly ▁higher ▁status , ▁as ▁they ▁had ▁to ▁be ▁over ▁thirty , ▁not ▁twenty ▁as ▁for ▁the ▁assembly , ▁and ▁they ▁were ▁under ▁o ath .) ▁ ▁The ▁mechanism ▁can ▁be ▁compared ▁to ▁the ▁upper ▁houses ▁found ▁in ▁many ▁modern ▁dem oc ra cies . ▁However , ▁in ▁Ath ens ▁this ▁review ▁was ▁not ▁automatic , ▁but ▁had ▁to ▁be ▁initi