Judicial Review without a Constitution

  title={Judicial Review without a Constitution},
  author={Douglas E. Edlin},
In the United States, judicial review is understood, since Marbury v. Madison (1803), as judicial evaluation of government action to ensure compliance with the Constitution. But before and after Marbury, state and federal courts developed and practiced a form of judicial review in which common law principles, along with or instead of a canonical document, were the foundational body of legal doctrine against which public actions were assessed. This article carefully examines the cases in which… 
3 Citations

Perspectives on the effectiveness of a Zimbabwean youth justice framework in meeting the needs of both young offenders and society

There is growing evidence that Zimbabwean current youth justice is failing to meet the needs of the young people and their families. Trying to balance the welfare model and the criminal justice model

Legal Foundations

The Supreme Court and the politics of language: an empirical investigation.

University of Minnesota Ph.D. dissertation. October 2011. Major: Political science. Advisor: Timothy R. Johnson. 1 computer file PDF); vii, 162 pages.



Judicial review and the law of the constitution

In this book, the author presents a new interpretation of the origin of judicial review. She traces the development of judicial review from American independence through the tenure of John Marshall

Against the Imperial Judiciary: The Supreme Court vs. the Sovereignty of the People

In this fresh and provocative critique of judicial power, Matthew Franck argues for a Supreme Court that is newly mindful of constitutionalism's basis in the sovereign will of the people and of the

Marbury v. Madison : The Origins and Legacy of Judicial Review

We take for granted today the tremendous power of the Supreme Court to interpret our laws and overrule any found in conflict with the Constitution. Yet our nation was a quarter-century old before

From Ambiguity to Legality: The Future of English Judicial Review

The orthodox understanding of parliamentary sovereignty holds that English courts cannot review the constitutionality of parliamentary enactments. According to this view of English judicial

Written and Unwritten Constitutional Law in the Founding Period: The Early New Jersey Cases.

Holmes v. Walton, a case decided by the New Jersey Supreme Court on September 7, 1780, has been at the center of controversies over the legitimacy of judicial review under the federal Constitution. I

Popular Sovereignty, the Origins of Judicial Review, and the Revival of Unwritten Law

This essay draws together research from a variety of sources to argue that American constitutional theory in the 1776-1803 period underwent a profound transformation. Central to that transformation

Constitutional Improprieties: Reflections on Mistretta, Morrison, and Administrative Government

I shall argue that under the Constitution only our politicians are entitled to the flexibility of waiting to see how one play works before calling the next one. Our constitutional courts, on the

Constitutional Interpretation: Textual Meaning, Original Intent, and Judicial Review

Constitutional scholarship has deteriorated into a set of armed camps, with defenders of different theories of judicial review too often talking to their own supporters but not engaging their

Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution

A year after the publication of Dicey's LAW OF THE CONSTITUTION, William Gladstone was reading it aloud in the House of Commons, citing it as authority. It remains, to this day, a starting point for

The Federal Government's Power to Enact Color-Conscious Laws: An Originalist Inquiry

The vogue for originalism in constitutional theory and the Constitution's condemnation of race-conscious laws lie in uneasy tension. Aware that no constitutional theory that impugns Brown v. Board of