Marbury v Madison: Judicial Review
Marshall wrote: "It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is." He argued that judges take an oath to uphold the Constitution, and if they enforce unconstitutional laws, they violate that oath. The Constitution is "superior paramount law," and ordinary statutes cannot override it. Therefore, when a law conflicts with the Constitution, courts must refuse to enforce that law. This became the doctrine of judicial review—the power of courts to declare laws unconstitutional and strike them down. Nowhere does the Constitution explicitly grant this power, but Marshall claimed it flows logically from the Constitution's status as supreme law.
Marbury v Madison: Judicial Review
Marshall wrote: "It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is." He argued that judges take an oath to uphold the Constitution, and if they enforce unconstitutional laws, they violate that oath. The Constitution is "superior paramount law," and ordinary statutes cannot override it. Therefore, when a law conflicts with the Constitution, courts must refuse to enforce that law. This became the doctrine of judicial review—the power of courts to declare laws unconstitutional and strike them down. Nowhere does the Constitution explicitly grant this power, but Marshall claimed it flows logically from the Constitution's status as supreme law.
Marbury v Madison: Judicial Review
Marshall wrote: "It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is." He argued that judges take an oath to uphold the Constitution, and if they enforce unconstitutional laws, they violate that oath. The Constitution is "superior paramount law," and ordinary statutes cannot override it. Therefore, when a law conflicts with the Constitution, courts must refuse to enforce that law. This became the doctrine of judicial review—the power of courts to declare laws unconstitutional and strike them down. Nowhere does the Constitution explicitly grant this power, but Marshall claimed it flows logically from the Constitution's status as supreme law.