Published Paper Details:

Judicial review is among the most valuable contributions of the United States to modern political thought. Originating from a landmark judicial decision, and its continuance has been ensured through established constitutional conventions. The concept was developed by Chief Justice John Marshall of the U.S. Supreme Court in the historic Marbury v. Madison case. In this case, the Court held that, as the Constitution is expressly declared the supreme law of the land, it is the judiciary's duty to interpret and uphold it, and therefore the courts have the authority to invalidate any state law or act of Congress found inconsistent with its provisions. This judgment firmly established the principle of judicial review as a cornerstone of constitutional governance. The same principle holds with regard to executive actions contrary to the Constitution. Supreme Court pronouncements on questions of constitutionality are final and binding for all other courts and governmental authorities, whether state or federal. Judicial review of the constitutionality of legislation presents an exciting and perplexing encounter between legislator and judge, between statute and judgment. However, judicial review is but a part of a much larger whole. If "constitutional justice" is understood as a state in which citizens can trust their government to safeguard certain inviolable rights, then judicial review of statutes represents only one path to achieving this ideal. In some nations, political mechanisms may serve as more effective checks than courts against the threat of majoritarian tyranny. Even within the sphere of judicial protection, formal review of statutes against a written constitution is merely one of several tools available to uphold constitutionality.