Take the 2-minute tour ×
History Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for historians and history buffs. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I'm watching the "Crash Course: American History" youtube series, and I like, it, but it obviously skips over a ton because it's packing decades at a time into 10 minutes.

So he just (briefly) covered the part where Marshall's Supreme Court created the process of Judicial Review in the case of Marbury vs. Madison, and said that it's strange, because that power isn't anywhere in the constitution. It seems like they just decided to do it that time, and then decided that it was their power to do so in the future because of that. What I don't understand is, then how did they make it a legitimate thing to do?

If it has never gone on the books, then, if they declare a law unconstitutional, who enforces it? Why do they enforce it?

share|improve this question
    
Who is the "they" in "why do they enforce it"? –  Mark C. Wallace Jul 5 at 13:15
    
This question should be closed IMO: As evidenced from the answers, it is a question primarily about Law, not History. –  user2590 Jul 6 at 7:17
    
Coups d'état happen too. –  Relaxed Jul 9 at 18:17

6 Answers 6

Oh, but it is in the Constitution - implicitly. The it "isn't anywhere in the constitution" argument is frequently popular to different groups on different topics, but in this case at least has no legal basis in jurisprudence.

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court ... The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;

-- Article III of the United States Constitution

The Constitution explictly grants the Supreme Court judicial power in Article Three. In Article Six, the Constitution asserted itself to be the supreme law. This meant that any law that contradicts the Constitution weren't valid - and the power of determining whether that was the case falls to the Supreme Court. In this way the Constitution provided for the judicial review of United States laws by the Supreme Court.

That a Constitutional power is not literally spelt out, does not make it any less official.

Based on your comments, it seems your question is why people accepted the Supreme Court wielding this power. Apart from what @Oldcat has said about it being generally thought of as a good idea, another reason is that this was established legal doctrine.

That is, judicial review was not something Marshall's Supreme Court "just decided to do". Remember, United States law did not appear out of a vacuum. It is a direct continuation of English common law as it existed in the Thirteen Colonies. Such laws continued to be in effect after independence, unless otherwise repealed. Importantly, that is relevant here because the concept of judicial review had been previously raised in English common law:

And it appeareth in our Books, that in many Cases, the Common Law doth controll Acts of Parliament, and somtimes shall adjudge them to be void: for when an Act of Parliament is against Common right and reason, or repugnant, or impossible to be performed, the Common Law will controll it, and adjudge such Act to be void ... for the arrearages incurred in the life of the auncestor do not belong to the heir: and because it shall be against right and reason, the Common Law shall adjudge the said Act of Parliament as to that point void

-- Thomas Bonham v College of Physicians, 77 Eng. Rep. 638 (1610)

In his landmark judgement, the Rt. Hon. Sir Edward Coke drew upon a history of cases and declared that Acts of Parliament might be voided. Under what circumstances this might take place is debated; it seems that at the very least he meant laws that were clearly repugnant could be set aside, but more generous interpretations argue Parliament could not contradict existing common law.

Regardless of which he originally meant, Lord Coke's judgement helped establish the concept of judges voiding invalid laws. Within England, what makes a law invalid was debatable due to the lack of a formal Constitution. While repudiating a law that's repugnant to natural rights might be supportable, Parliament obviously should be able to override normal common laws. This eventually meant Parliamentary Sovereignty became established doctrine after 1688.

In the Thirteen Colonies, however, it was an established principle that colonial legislation repugnant to the laws of England were void ab initio. Judicial review of colonial laws in English courts was thus very much an active process prior to the Revolutionary War. A number of colonial legislation were thus viewed by the Privy Council, and at least one, a 1699 Connecticut Intestacy Statute, was declared null and void in 1728.

After 1776, the principle persisted in the states, reasoning that state constitutions ought to be applied before regular state laws. Thus, the concept of judicial review, already well established in the common law of the colonies, informed both the drafting of the Constitution as well as the operations of the Supreme Court thereafter. It would have been assumed that judges would simply continue doing what they've been doing all along, and invalidate any law that's repugnant to the Constitution.

In summary, Marshall's Supreme Court did not "gave themselves" a new power. They applied a widely understood and accepted legal doctrine. In fact the early Supreme Court actually conducted judicial reviews in a number of cases prior to the landmark Marbury v Madison. There has been records of at least dozens of cases of judicial review, both by the Supreme Court and on local/state levels, before the 1803 case.

share|improve this answer
1  
Excellent analysis, but I'm going to agree with @oldcat. The power is not in the constitution, and was not, to the best of my knowledge, discussed in the formation of the constitution. Judicial voiding of laws however is a valuable addition to the discussion –  Mark C. Wallace Jul 3 at 18:43
1  
Parliamentary sovereignty in 1688 was affirmed. That doesn't mean they had the government to back that up. They spent at least a hundred years figuring out what parliamentary sovereignty really meant. I think if we were to develop/discuss your answer further, we'd have to dive deeper on that issue. I don't think we disagree, but I don't want to overstate the case. –  Mark C. Wallace Jul 3 at 18:45
1  
@MarkC.Wallace Hmm, I probably overstated its inclusion in the Constitution; have changed wording to "implicit" for now. I'm fairly certain the issue was discussed in the Constitutional Convention however; I will try to complete my answer more tonight or tomorrow. –  Semaphore Jul 3 at 18:56
1  
Re The Constitution implicity grants the Supreme Court judicial power in Article Three -- I think you meant explicitly. You have the exact words right above that: The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court. That is very explicit, about as explicit as the Constitution gets. –  David Hammen Jul 4 at 8:52
1  
I have to down-vote this answer because you have stated something that is actually quite controversial and presented it as agreed upon and inarguable. One need look no further that Jefferson himself, who had a great deal to say on this subject that goes entirely against everything you have stated. –  user2590 Jul 5 at 9:38

@Oldcat has the core of the answer. Judicial review was not part of the constitution. The constitution says very little about the judicial branch beyond the assertion that we should have one and the implication that it should be independent of the legislative and executive branch. The constitution mandates only one court, and doesn't say anything about how many justices, how often it will sit, how the justices will be chosen, how long they will serve.

The Democratic Republican Party was deeply hostile to the judicary - they felt that only republican citizens could decide facts and concepts like precedent and law would diminish the republican virtues. (My source is long buried, but I believe that any biography of Jefferson or the election of 1800 will expand on this).

Since the constitution is silent, a strict and literal review of the constitution would therefore contend that judicial review is a power reserved to the states or the people. That would have resulted in disaster. Even when the constitution was being debated, almost nobody was arguing for the chaos of the articles of confederation. Everyone recognized that the national government had to be slightly more powerful than the states, or we would return to that disaster.

Marshall was a canny politician and recognized that Marbury Vs Madison was an opportunity to solve a problem. He invented judicial review and both sides have kept it/respected it because it solves that problem. If the Supreme Court's interpretation is at odds with the legislative intent, then Congress can redress the problem. If the interpretation is unenforceable, then the executive branch will ignore it. But the critical thing is that the decision is made, is made in a relatively disinterested fashion, and is made in a way which is relatively final.

If you really want to understand why the power of judicial review has survived, try to design a system where the power of judicial review is absent, and there is a conflict in the interpretation of fundamental precepts of law. That is the core problem, and it has to be solved. Marshall's solution was elegant enough that it has survived.

Also recognize that it is entirely possible that they hadn't anticipated the problem of judicial review. The US constitution broke novel ground and created problems that hadn't existed before. I haven't seen any evidence that anyone had raised the problem in any of the constitutional conventions. (I'm open to counter-evidence).

Remember that British courts work on British common law, which treats prior precedent as binding, but all interpretation is done by judges who serve at the pleasure of the King. (at the time). (Also recognize that many of the judges at the time are not trained in law; they serve as members of the aristocracy. The USA didn't acknowledge their aristocracy, and the zealot republican faction opposed the aristocracy.) So there are two fundamental reasons why the USA cannot simply adopt the British system.

I don't have enough insight into French Judicial practice at the time, but I believe that the USA could not solve the problem that way either - French authority emerges from and ends with the King, and that was not a legitimate solution for the early USA.

We respect judicial review because it solved a problem in a way that didn't gore anyone's ox too badly, because the people who were offended by Marshall's powergrab were on the decline, because Marshall was very well connected and politically skilled, and because the government is stronger with it than with any alternative that has been proposed.

The constitution is flexible enough that we could have replaced it with something else if we'd needed to. After all we added the income tax, Executive Orders, the military industrial complex and the welfare state. But nobody has proposed any (realistic) alternative.

share|improve this answer
1  
The amendment process doesn't address conflicts in the interpretation by the executive branch and the legislative branch, is slow and cumbersome, doesn't address judicial nullification, and it doesn't have the same effect of creating consistent precedent, which is critical in a British inspired legal system. –  Mark C. Wallace Jul 5 at 13:10
1  
You correctly deduced why I included the first two. You're at odds with the majority of scholars on the last two. Welfare state is a fundamental change in the intent of the government; a violation of amendments 9&10, plus the Jefferson/Henry debates. Military Industrial complex is a complicated topic deserving of a separate essay, but again, it is a fundamental change in the design of government. Jefferson's Democratic-Republicans opposed a standing army; the MIC creates not just a standing army, but assigns it a portion of GNP. –  Mark C. Wallace Jul 5 at 13:14
1  
Not arguing with your assessments of the phenomena of the Welfare State and the MIC, and I agree that the "WS" idea violates IX,X, and few others as well...Just saying that the first two are clear legal concepts, each with its own constitutional (or quasi constitutional in the case of Ex. Orders) basis, while the other two are just descriptive umbrella terms that represent a change in the direction and orientation of our government on the "macro" scale, but legally speaking really don't represent anything in particular. I am discussing semantics-conceptually, I am on entirely on your side. :) –  user2590 Jul 5 at 15:26
1  
The amendment process doesn't address conflicts in the interpretation by the executive branch, is slow and cumbersome... - But the Amendment process gives us the power to address all of those matters within the framework of the current constitution - again, no need for "alternatives". Even the Amendment Process itself could be speeded up, through an amendment. It would only take one! The Constitution itself has a built in safety valve that has the potential to make that Constituion virtually immutable. That's one of the reasons it has lasted this long (if it really has...??...) –  user2590 Jul 5 at 15:30
1  
Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps –  user2590 Jul 5 at 22:39

I had explained that judicial review was not a power invented in 1803, but rather an established legal practice. This has been questioned ("The power is not in the constitution, and was not, to the best of my knowledge, discussed in the formation of the constitution."); since I'm apparently not allowed to edit my first answer, I thought I'd address the concerns raised by @MarkCWallace and @Oldcat here.

Judicial Review In the Constitutional Convention

Arguably @MarkCWallace was correct in saying judicial review was not "discussed". At least, it was not substantially discussed in the Constitutional Convention. However, that would be misleading. It was not "discussed" because it was universally, or near universally, agreed to be a judicial power, and with no dissent there was no significant debate either.

In fact, while the framers of the Constitution might not have debated it at length, they most certainly touched upon the topic of judicial review several times. During the Constitutional Convention, a recurring topic was the concept of an executive veto. Judicial review was often mentioned in connection to this, especially in response to proposals to linking the judiciary and executive branches together in vetoing Congress.

Mr. King was of opinion that the Judicial ought not to join in the negative of a Law, because the Judges will have the expounding of those Laws when they come before them; and they will no doubt stop the operation of such as shall appear repugnant to the constitution.

-- Notes of Major William Pierce on the Federal Convention, May 1787

Mr. GERRY doubts whether the Judiciary ought to form a part of it, as they will have a sufficient check agst. encroachments on their own department by their exposition of the laws, which involved a power of deciding on their Constitutionality. In some States the Judges had actually set aside laws as being agst. the Constitution. This was done too with general approbation. It was quite foreign from the nature of ye. office to make them judges of the policy of public measures.

-- James Madison's Notes of Debates in the Federal Convention, June 4, 1787

Mr. Govr. MORRIS was more & more opposed to the negative. The proposal of it would disgust all the States. A law that ought to be negatived will be set aside in the Judiciary departmt. and if that security should fail; may be repealed by a Nationl. law.

-- James Madison's Notes of Debates in the Federal Convention, July 17, 1787

As the notes show, the idea of the judiciary exercising the power of judicial review was so natural to the delegates, that they simply assumed it will be included in the as-yet unwritten Constitution. Rufus King plainly stated that judges will strike down unconstitutional laws. Elbridge Gerry even cited this happening (testifying to the fact that judicial review was an established operation, as I discussed earlier). Gouverneur Morris stands out from the other two by not even limiting the exercise of this judicial power to the limits of the constitution.

On 21 July, James Wilson reintroduced a proposal to link the judiciary to the executive for approving Congressional legislation. This sparked in the most extensive debate on this subject in the convention. As the delegates argued over the wisdom of having judges review legislation (as opposed to waiting for laws to reach them in cases), both those who were for and against the proposal mentioned judicial review.

Mr. WILSON ... It had been said that the Judges, as expositors of the Laws would have an opportunity of defending their constitutional rights. There was weight in this observation; but this power of the Judges did not go far enough. Laws may be unjust, may be unwise, may be dangerous, may be destructive; and yet may not be so unconstitutional as to justify the Judges in refusing to give them effect.

Mr. L. MARTIN. ... A knowledge of Mankind, and of Legislative affairs cannot be presumed to belong in a higher degree to the Judges than to the Legislature. And as to the Constitutionality of laws, that point will come before the Judges in their proper official character. In this character they have a negative on the laws. Join them with the Executive in the Revision and they will have a double negative.

Col. MASON Observed that ... It had been said that if the Judges were joined in this check on the laws, they would have a double negative, since in their expository capacity of Judges they would have one negative. He would reply that in this capacity they could impede in one case only, the operation of laws. They could declare an unconstitutional law void. But with regard to every law however unjust oppressive or pernicious, which did not come plainly under this description, they would be under the necessity as Judges to give it a free course.

-- James Madison's Notes of Debates in the Federal Convention, July 21, 1787

What is notable is that neither side deny or even question the power of judges to void unconstitutional laws in courts. This is despite the topic at hand being whether judges should have a say in the making of said laws. Indeed, Luther Martin outright claimed veto powers for the Supreme Court, limited only by needing the law brought before them. It fell to James Wilson and Colonel George Mason to point out judges could only void unconstitutional laws, and not all bad laws might be unconstitutional.

On July 23, the convention briefly considered the matter of how the Constitution was to be adopted. Judicial review was brought up as a potential obstacle.

Mr. Govr. MORRIS considered ... [i]f the Confederation is to be pursued ... Legislative alterations not conformable to the federal compact, would clearly not be valid. The Judges would consider them as null & void. Whereas in case of an appeal to the people of the U. S., the supreme authority, the federal compact may be altered by a majority of them.

Mr. MADISON .. considered the difference between a system founded on the Legislatures only, and one founded on the people, to be the true difference between a league or treaty, and a Constitution. ... In point of political operation, there were two important distinctions in favor of the latter. 1. [FN12] A law violating a treaty ratified by a pre-existing law, might be respected by the Judges as a law, though an unwise or perfidious one. A law violating a constitution established by the people themselves, would be considered by the Judges as null & void.

-- James Madison's Notes of Debates in the Federal Convention, July 23, 1787

Gouverneur Morris pointed out that judges could well void the proposed Constitution for not adhering to the Articles of Confederation's mandated alteration procedures requiring the consent of every legislature. This view was shared by James Madison. But neither challenged judges over the power of judicial review; instead, both argued that if the people supported the constitution then the judges would not object. It is difficult to imagine that no one would speak out against judicial review, if it was not already understood by all to be an established legal doctrine.

In fact, the closest the Philadelphia Convention came to rejecting the doctrine of judicial review, actually helps established what I have written earlier: that the concept of judicial review was a legal doctrine established by then.

Mr. MERCER heartily approved the motion. It is an axiom that the Judiciary ought to be separate from the Legislative: but equally so that it ought to be independent of that department. ... He disapproved of the Doctrine that the Judges as expositors of the Constitution should have authority to declare a law void. He thought laws ought to be well and cautiously made, and then to be uncontroulable.

-- James Madison's Notes of Debates in the Federal Convention, August 15, 1787

The disapproval of John Francis Mercer was shared by John Dickinson.

Mr. DICKENSON was strongly impressed with the remark of Mr. Mercer as to the power of the Judges to set aside the law. He thought no such power ought to exist. He was at the same time at a loss what expedient to substitute. The Justiciary of Arragon he observed became by degrees, the lawgiver.

-- James Madison's Notes of Debates in the Federal Convention, August 15, 1787

Note the language used here, however: ought. A rudimentary understanding of English would elucidate that, clearly, this meant that such a power for judges to set aside laws did indeed exist. That Mercer's misgivings were not shared by the rest of the Convention, however, is obvious - no motion to deny judges the power of judicial review was even tabled, let alone passed. Moreover - confessing that he had no better alternative than judicial review, Dickinson would voice support for the doctrine elsewhere.

In conclusion, in vesting the Supreme Court with the "judicial power of the United States", the Constitution's framers understood said power to include judicial review.


Judicial Review during the Ratification

After the Constitution was written, a campaign began to ratify it in the States. Part of the campaign was (naturally) explaining the implications of the Constitution. In this the campaigners of course had the aid of those who had drafted the document to interpret its meaning. They clearly demonstrate that the Supreme Court was understood to wield the power of judicial review.

The Federalist Papers, for instance, contained this elaboration on the judiciary.

[T]he courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature ... to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. A Constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the Judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular Act proceeding from the Legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two ... the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the People to the intention of their agents.

Nor does this conclusion by any means suppose a superiority of the Judicial to the Legislative power. It only supposes that the power of the People is superior to both; and that where the will of the Legislature, declared in its statutes, stands in opposition to that of the People, declared in the Constitution, the Judges ought to be governed by the latter rather than the former.

-- from Federalist No.78 by Alexander Hamilton

Alexander Hamilton was, of course, far from alone in this interpretation of the Constitution.

I say, under this Constitution, the legislature may be restrained, and kept within its prescribed bounds, by the interposition of the judicial department. ... it is possible that the legislature, when acting in that capacity, may transgress the bounds assigned to it ... but when it comes to be discussed before the judges, when they consider its principles, and find it to be incompatible with the superior power of the Constitution, it is their duty to pronounce it void; and judges independent, and not obliged to look to every session for a continuance of their salaries, will behave with intrepidity, and refuse to the act the sanction of judicial authority.

The honorable gentleman from Cumberland says that laws may be made inconsistent with the Constitution; and that therefore the powers given to the judges are dangerous. For my part, Mr. President, I think the contrary inference true. If a law should be made inconsistent with those powers vested by this instrument in Congress, the judges, as a consequence of their independence, and the particular powers of government being defined, will declare such law to be null and void; for the power of the Constitution predominates. Any thing, therefore, that shall be enacted by Congress contrary thereto, will not have the force of law.

-- speech of James Wilson in the Pennsylvania Ratifying Convention, December 7, 1787

This was recognised even by those who opposed the new Constitution. An article in Philadelphia's Chronicle of Freedom actually cites judicial review of legislation as a reason to be against the Constitution (since they thought it would mean voiding good legislation that corrects flaws in the Constitution.:

[T]here is a further barrier ... namely, the supreme court of the union, whose province it would be to determine the constitutionality of any law that may be controverted ... it would be their sworn duty to refuse their sanction to laws made in the face and contrary to the Letter and spirit of the constitution ... The 1st section of 3d article gives the supreme court cognizance of not only the laws, but of all cases arising under the constitution, which empowers this tribunal to decide upon the construction of the constitution itself in the last resort.

-- from Centinel XVI, Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, Feb 26, 1788

I hope these examples illustrate that there's no shortage of materials from the ratification that supports this interpretation of the Supreme Court's power including judicial review.


All in all, not only was the Supreme Court intended to be given judicial review in the Constitution, but it was understood to be given that power when the Constitution was ratified.

Judicial review was not only established enough in the legal system of 1878 to be simply assumed to exist, the lack of controversy surrounding it is evidence for how well it was accepted by contemporaries. Marshall's Supreme Court certainly did not invent it in 1803, despite what seems to be considered the "conventional view".

share|improve this answer
1  
Apparently Jefferson at the time, and all historians since then have disagreed with your contention. And as you say, a lot of this debate was for a proposed pre-review of a law before ratification, not Judicial Review –  Oldcat Jul 8 at 18:15
    
@Oldcat Apparently you did not read my answer at all. At least, that is the kindest explanation I can think of for your absurd comment. The point is they argued judicial 'pre-review' (veto) was unnecessary because of judicial review. –  Semaphore Jul 8 at 19:17
    
@Oldcat - and all historians since then have disagreed with your contention - Not really. See my answer. –  user2590 Jul 12 at 20:18
    
Note the language used here, however: ought. A rudimentary understanding of English would elucidate that, clearly, this meant that such a power for judges to set aside laws did indeed exist. "A rudimentary understanding of English" elucidates that your interpretation of "ought" here is ridiculous. It can just as well mean "ought not come into existence". –  user2590 Jul 13 at 5:24

Some of the basis for judicial review is almost tautological. In order for judges to issue decisions consistent with the law, the judges must know what the law is. If a case arises where the existing laws do not clearly say which side should win and which side should lose, a judge may have to make a decision based upon factors beyond those specified in the law. Again, this is almost tautological: if X must be done (someone must be awarded the win), but Y is insufficient to do X (the law is insufficient to determine who that should be), then X must be done by some means beyond Y (judges must used something other than the law as written in making their decisions). Although it's not entirely tautological, it should generally be non-controversial that when a judge takes into consideration factors other than the law as written, it is better for him to document how a decision was reached, than to allow judges to make arbitrary decisions without justification. Further, people who know how the judge will interpret ambiguous laws will be better able to avoid being unpleasantly surprised if similar cases arise in future and the judge rules the same way.

The point where things become problematic is when one progresses from "part of a judge's job is to say what a law means" to "the law means whatever a judge says it does". If a judge is properly doing his job, he will say what the law means and thus the law will mean what he says. On the other hand, the two statements above will only be equivalent as long as a judge never says anything inconsistent with what the law says. If a judge makes a ruling inconsistent with the law, the ruling won't change the meaning of the law. Rather, it will indicate an expressed intention to illegitimately ignore the law in future similar cases.

Over the years, the presumption that those in power (be they judges or whoever else) should do their job has unfortunately evolved into an unassailable axiomatic belief that they will, to the extent that causal relationships have reversed, and people perceive the court's actions as making things constitutional or unconstitutional, rather than being consequences of whether the things actually were constitutional or not. If one reads decisions like Marbury v. Madison with the view that the court is following the law, it will be consistent with that view. If one reads them with the view that the court is shaping the law, it will also be consistent with that view. Consequentially, the decisions may have been "accepted" [allowed to exist without provoking immediate reaction] because people interpreted them the former way; then at a later time, those pushing the latter viewpoint could use the existence of the earlier decisions to imply that their viewpoint represents the way things have always been.

share|improve this answer
    
@MarkC.Wallace: In Marbury v. Madison the Supreme Court was pressed with the task of making some decision in a case where the law would have supported either party about equally well. The Court basically had to either (1) assume some concrete interpretation of the ambiguous aspects of the law; (2) award victory based on some criterion having nothing to do with the law; (3) leave the case pending indefinitely unless or until the legislature clarified the law. I think most people would agree that if a Court has no other alternative, (1) would be the least evil of those choices. –  supercat Aug 25 at 16:10
    
@MarkC.Wallace: I think that answers how Marbury v. Madison itself was seen as legitimate. The expansion of powers has been a consequence of gradual retroactive reinterpretations of Marbury v. Madison which were able to present expansions of judicial power not as something new, but rather as something which had always been accepted as legitimate. Does that not answer the question, or does my answer not express that clearly enough? –  supercat Aug 25 at 16:24
    
I think that addresses my reservations. –  Mark C. Wallace Aug 25 at 17:20
    
@MarkC.Wallace: Any suggestions for how I could edit the post to clarify it for those who don't read the comments? –  supercat Aug 25 at 18:22
    
I think if you inserted the comments as the first few paragraphs of the answer it would clarify things. I think the answer has all the thoughts - the terse summary you provided in the comments helped me to connect the answer to the question. (that might just be me). –  Mark C. Wallace Aug 26 at 0:39

Your description accurate enough. The US Constitution is a broad document and does not have paragraphs for every little action that the government does. It set up the Supreme Court, to have jurisdiction over all law cases appealed to them. When Marshall first used Judicial Review, it 'made sense' that if anyone were to decide that a Federal Law violated parts of the Constitution, then the Supreme Court would be the place to decide.

Enforcement is done by the same Legislature that was overruled, because they now accept this power as a good thing in the balance. When the Supreme Court makes a blockhead decision the Legislature might decide that it will not do so, or trump the decision by extending the Constitution.

Both these were done for the Dred Scott, where a Southern dominated Court tried to 'fix' sectional controversy by claiming that Blacks, free or slave, could never be US Citizens among its many claims. The Republican party vowed not to enforce this, and when in power during the Civil War added amendments that made both Slavery and this decision a dead letter.

share|improve this answer
    
Thank you for the response, but unless I'm not understanding something, what you're saying is at odds with what @TylerDurden is saying below -- he's saying that once they make a decision, it's final. –  confuzzled Jul 3 at 17:53
    
Congress made no attempt to strip Negroes of their citizenship despite the Dred Scott decision, nor to introduce Slavery in all territories. And when they had the chance, they trumped it by adding amendments. –  Oldcat Jul 3 at 17:56
    
@confuzzled Once the Supreme Court makes a decision, it cannot be overturned by another court because there is no higher one. However, Congress has the power to amend the Constitution to explicitly overturn a Court verdict; by definition, a Constitutional Amendment cannot "contradict the Constitution." –  Michael Edenfield Jul 4 at 1:23
2  
@confuzzled - Tyler Durden's answer is essentially the same as Semaphore's answer, but without the excellent research and background that Semaphore provides us. And yes, that answer is at odds with this answer, as Oldcat himself commented on Semaphore's answer. –  user2590 Jul 5 at 10:12
1  
I'm not sure why the history of how the judicial review doctrine developed "have nothing to do" with the question of why it was a "legitimate thing" for Marshall's court. Then again, your criticism appears wholly consist of bitter anger against the modern judiciary than history. In truth your "confusion and obfuscation" stems from your insistence on treating history.se as politics.se –  Semaphore Jul 7 at 5:31

It is the responsibility of a court to determine what the meaning of a law is, in other words to interpret the law. It follows from this that if laws are inconsistent or incompatible then the court may void the law. This is true not only of the Supreme Court, but of any court. In essence the courts have the ability to veto any law which is invalid. A law can be invalid if it is self-contradictory or is inconsistent with other pre-existing laws.

In the case of the Supreme Court, they may hold that a law is inconsistent with the Constitution, in which case the law is voided irrevocably. The difference between the Supreme Court and lesser courts is that if a lower court decides that a law is unconstitutional it can be overruled by a higher court, but the Supreme Court's decision cannot be appealed.

share|improve this answer
    
Thank you for the response, but unless I'm not understanding something, what you're saying is at odds with what @Oldcat is saying below -- he's saying that congress can not enforce it. –  confuzzled Jul 3 at 17:53
    
Most decisions are treated as just that, final. Only the really stupid ones are exceptions. –  Oldcat Jul 3 at 17:57
    
@confuzzled The legislature makes laws, it does not enforce them. The courts interpret the laws the legislature makes. The court can also void a law, in which case the law is undone. The decisions of the Supreme Court are final and cannot be appealed. –  Tyler Durden Jul 3 at 17:57
1  
Congress isn't a monolithic body, and there are political consequences for opposing the Supremes. Use that reasoning if you don't like respect for the Courts. When DS in essence banned the platform of the Republican Party in the 1850s, they did just that. –  Oldcat Jul 3 at 18:38
2  
I have to downvote this answer: You have made a very controversial topic into a cut and dry issue, using no sources whatsoever. See my comments on the answer of @Semaphore. –  user2590 Jul 5 at 10:17

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.