Judicial review is the power of the judiciary to review the acts of its coequal branches to see if they are valid according to the constitution (Hall, 88). Although it was not written into the constitution, judicial review was active in many places before the constitution. For instance, Alexander Hamilton wrote in the Federalist Papers that if the legislature declared in its statutes something that stood in opposition to the will of the people declared in the constitution, then the judiciary should find in favor of the people (Hall, 90). Even before that, judicial review was practiced in state courts before 1789. It is evident in the efforts to form state tribunals known as councils of censors and councils of revision which existed in Pennsylvania, New York and Vermont.
The Pennsylvania Constitution of 1776 provided that the Constitution could not be violated, and a council was formed to oversee the constitutionality of the actions of the executive and legislative branches (Hall 90). In New York, the governor, chancellor, and justices of the state supreme court sat together on a council of revision to review bills to make sure they were constitutionally correct before they were enacted into law. These early judicial review processes were important historically because they demonstrated that the framers of the American Constitution did not embrace the English concept of legislative supremacy. They wrote the constitution based heavily on natural law and natural rights and theories, believing that certain matters were outside the control of governments and that certain rights were inalienable.
In the case of Marbury vs Madison in 1801, a judicial review decision was handed down by the U. S. Supreme Court (Judicial, 2004). The case began because President Jefferson did not like aan appointment made by his predecessor, John Adams, just before he left office. Adams had appointed William Marbury to the position of justice...