Some would say that without judicial review the legislature would become tyrannical, although the British Parliament is an excellent counter-example to this argument.
The course of events that lead to the Civil War would have certainly been different. The pro-slavery Taney Court declared in the Dred Scott decision that Federal Laws limiting slavery in the territories were unconstitutional. They used the then-novel notion of "substantive due process", essentially declaring that the law was so icky, it must be unconstitutional, even though they couldn't show anyone just how.
A more principled Court could have decided the case with whichever outcome they preferred. They could have either said that Scott was free on the principle of "once free, always free" or declared that he voluntarily re-entered slavery when without compulsion he moved from Wisconsin to Missouri. But, no, they had to go for the home run by declaring that everybody was messed up, and only they were smart enough to recognize that the fifth amendment really controlled the whole issue.
By saying that the people didn't have the power to decide through normal democratic processes what the law should be so inflamed anti-slavery sections of the country that they were just looking for a fight, and in 1861 when South Carolina gave them an excuse, they went for it with both feet.
Many of the delegates who helped write into law, The Constitution of the United States, were responsible for the concept of judicial review. The first case to test the validity of this process was Marbury vs. Madison in 1789.
In Federalist Paper no. 78, Hamilton argues in support of judicial review.
A judicial review is a judicial body empowered to annul lower courts rulings if they conflict with the constitution. A judicial review, for instance, might rule that a state can not decree that everyone with blue eyes be imprisoned because this conflicts with federally granted rights.
The power of judicial review is granted to the Supreme Court by Article III of the United States Constitution.
Marbury v. Madison established judicial review in the United States legal system.
judicial review
I do not know who said that but if you are wondering what it refers to, that would be a judicial review.
Workable--yes. There have been many systems of government around the world that did not have judicial review.Fair--no. Without judicial review, someone in another branch of government gets to be the final arbiter of disputes about the meanings of laws. And those people are usually the ones who also have the guns
That power is the power of judicial review.
Judicial Review
Judicial review... which was given binding authority by Maybury v Madison in 1803
judicial review
A judicial review allows the Supreme Court to annul any acts of the state that is deemed to be unconstitutional. This decision was made during the Marbury v. Madison case which stated that they have the right to review the acts of Congress to determine its constitutionality.
no the power of judicial review is not mentioned in the constitution. because Judicial Review was used in 13th century law but the courts didn't agree with it so it was forgotten. until the case of Marbury v. Madison that is when Judicial Review came back to the power of the Supreme Court.
The responsibility for conducting judicial review lies with the judiciary branch of government.
"Constitution review" most likely refers to the courts' power of judicial review. For more information about judicial review, see Related Questions, below.
Judicial Review