...previous republican commitments? At the outset of his argument for judicial review, Marshall had asked "whether an act, repugnant to the constitution, can become the law of the land." But as Bickel has pointed out, that's the wrong question. The real question is not "whether?" but "who?"...

...Constitution. In an opinion which cannot be abridged, or too frequently quoted, he says: <r The question whether an act repugnant to the constitution can become...decide it. " That the people have an original right tq establish for their future government such principles as in their opinion shall most conduce to...

...constitutional cases is similar in some respects to Hamilton's. Marshall starts with the general "question, whether an act, repugnant to the constitution, can become the law of the land," and, like Hamilton, appeals to popular sovereignty to justify the supremacy of the Constitution as...

...it becomes necessary to inquire whether a jurisdiction so conferred can be exercised. The question whether an act repugnant to the Constitution can become...have been long and well established, to decide it. on which the whole American fabric has been erected. The exercise of this original right is a very...

...it becomes necessary to inquire whether a jurisdiction so conferred can be exercised. The question whether an act repugnant to the Constitution can become...proportioned to its interest. It seems only necessary to recognise certain principles, supposed to have been long and well established, to decide it. That the...

...Constitution are void is a mere truism. Perhaps that is why Marshall can plausibly say that "[t]he question, whether an act, repugnant to the constitution, can become the law of the land, is a question ... not of an intricacy proportioned to its interest."** The argument which leads to Marshall's second...

...recognize this or understand its significance. Marshall, in Marbury, phrased the first question as "whether an act, repugnant to the constitution, can become the law of the land."46 The second was "if an act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void, does...

...the supreme law of the land. Marshall began with a question that was "deeply interesting" to America: "whether an act, repugnant to the constitution, can become the law of the land," and from thence, to the theory that answered the question. "Happily," he continued, the question was...

..."emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is." The question whether an act repugnant to the constitution can become...question deeply interesting to the United States. . . . That the people have an original right to establish for their future government such principles...

...particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing." In 1803 John Marshall found "The question whether an act repugnant to the constitution can become the law of the land deeply interesting to the United States."36 In his landmark opinion, Marbury v. Madison, Marshall wrote:...