SUPREME COURT AND JUDICIAL REVIEW 2
Supreme Court and Judicial Review
Judicial review was anticipated before the adaptation of the constitution. As a result, it
was not clearly outlined in the Constitution. For instance, the state courts were overturning
legislative acts that conflicted with states constitution before the year 1798 ("The Court and
Constitutional Interpretation", n.d.). Cheifly,, the Supreme Court was expected to assume the
role of judicial review by founding fathers, Alexander Hamilton as well as James Madison,
regarding the constitution. The two emphasized the significance of judicial review in the federal
structures and insisted on the enactment of the constitution.
Hamilton expressed that the implementation of judicial review by the court would
safeguard the will of the people and ensure that it corresponds to the constitution. On the other
hand, Madison’s idea was that the constitutional interpretation should be left for a reasoned
verdict of independent judges and, as a result, not the conflict caused by the political
interference. However, the judicial review was officially confirmed in the year 1803 after Chief
justice John Marshall invoked it in the case of Marbury vs. Madison. Article IV of the
constitution defines the document as the supreme law that governs the land ("Supreme Court and
Judicial Review", n.d.). Therefore, the act of Congress cannot stand if the court finds it contrary
to the constitution.
Constitutional texts support judicial review of the federal laws in different ways. First,
the constitutions are set to be supreme over the statutes. Second, judges have the responsibility of
ruling against those acts that violate the law, whereas the Congress does not have the powers to
make such determination. The constitution itself empowers the state courts to determine cases
where states laws conflict with the document (Rappaport, 2013). As a result, the same structure
