Judicial Review - Philosophical Concept | Alexandria
Judicial Review: a concept seemingly straightforward, yet shrouded in historical complexities, refers to the power of courts to examine the actions of the legislative, executive, and administrative branches of government and to determine whether such actions are consistent with the constitution. Often conflated with mere legal oversight, or dismissed as a purely modern phenomenon, Judicial Review holds within it a far richer, multifaceted past. The seeds of this concept, though not explicitly termed as such, can be traced back to the early 17th century. In Dr. Bonham's Case (1610), Sir Edward Coke, Chief Justice of the King's Bench, articulated the idea that common law could control acts of Parliament and render them void if they were repugnant or impossible to be performed, a statement that, while debated, hints at the nascent notion of judicial authority over legislation. This period, marked by the tumultuous reigns of the Stuart monarchs and their clashes with Parliament, offers a compelling backdrop against which to consider the emergence of checks on governmental power.
Over centuries, interpretations of Judicial Review have shifted significantly. While Coke's proposition was not fully embraced in England, it resonated across the Atlantic. The American colonies, fueled by Enlightenment ideals and grievances against distant rule, gradually adopted the idea of written constitutions and a judicial role in their enforcement. Marbury v. Madison (1803), a seemingly minor dispute over a judicial appointment, became the landmark case establishing Judicial Review in the United States, with Chief Justice John Marshall declaring that "it is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is." This moment, however, was not without controversy, sparking debates about the proper scope and limits of judicial power that continue to this day. Interestingly, the framers of the Constitution never explicitly mentioned Judicial Review; its establishment was an act of judicial interpretation, adding an intriguing layer of ambiguity to its origins.
The legacy of Judicial Review extends far beyond the courtroom. It has shaped political landscapes, protected minority rights (and, at times, hindered them), and served as a cornerstone of constitutional democracy in many nations. Today, as societies grapple with questions of executive overreach and legislative gridlock, Judicial Review remains a subject of intense debate and reinterpretation. Is it a vital safeguard of liberty, or an undemocratic check on the popular will? As legal scholars and citizens ponder this question, the enigma surrounding Judicial Review—its historical evolution, its cultural impact, and its continuing relevance—beckons for continued exploration.