Judicial Review and the Constitution: A Constitutional Classic

Author: Sylvia Snowdon (USA)
Publisher:
Publish Date: 2005-09-01
Features: In this original and thought-provoking work, Sylvia Snowdon offers a new interpretation of the origins of judicial review. Snowdon traces the development of judicial review from the American Revolutionary War to the end of Chief Justice John Marshall's tenure. Marshall's contributions were far more innovative and decisive than we have recognized. According to the author, before Marshall, all those who supported judicial review envisioned a practice of judicial review that was fundamentally different from what we understand today. Marshall did not merely reinforce or expand existing accepted notions; instead, he subtly and cleverly transformed the nature of the Constitution and the relationship between the judiciary and the Constitution. Snowdon argues that the original constitutional limitations were understood as statements embodying the primary political principles of the Constitution's text, which were not lagging behind. Through meticulous and highly strategic judicial opinions, in the absence of public awareness, Marshall transformed these principles into the highest written law. At the same time, he shifted judicial review from the defense of principles in obviously unconstitutional cases to the routine application and interpretation of the constitutional text. In the final chapter of this book, Snowdon explores the impact of this analysis on contemporary judicial review crises. Her reinterpretation of judicial review provides both sides of the debate on this fundamental right with a new perspective—opposing opposing assumptions about the intent and status of the Constitution. More importantly, this book reinitiates and examines one of the most fundamental and enduring questions in American constitutional law: the relationship between the legal and political elements of the Constitution. This important work will be read and cited by all students studying judicial review; it will become a major factor in the ongoing debate about the role of the Supreme Court.