Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Judicial review can be understood in the context of two distinct—but parallel—legal systems, civil law and common law, and also by two distinct theories of democracy regarding the manner in which government should be organized with respect to the principles and doctrines of legislative supremacy and the separation of powers.
In the United States, judicial review is the legal power of a court to determine if a statute, treaty, or administrative regulation contradicts or violates the provisions of existing law, a State Constitution, or ultimately the United States Constitution.
Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court that established the principle of judicial review, meaning that American courts have the power to strike down laws and statutes they find to violate the Constitution of the United States.
Judicial review is a part of UK constitutional law that enables people to challenge the exercise of power, usually by a public body.A person who contends that an exercise of power is unlawful may apply to the Administrative Court (a part of the King's Bench Division of the High Court) for a decision.
Additionally, in some areas of substantive law, such as when a court is reviewing a First Amendment issue, an appellate court will use a standard of review called "independent review." [citation needed] The standard is somewhere in between de novo review and clearly erroneous review. Under independent review, an appellate court will reexamine ...
Intermediate scrutiny, in U.S. constitutional law, is the second level of deciding issues using judicial review.The other levels are typically referred to as rational basis review (least rigorous) and strict scrutiny (most rigorous).
The concept of rational basis review can be traced to an influential 1893 article, "The Origin and Scope of American Constitutional Law", by Harvard law professor James Bradley Thayer. Thayer argued that statutes should be invalidated only if their unconstitutionality is "so clear that it is not open to rational question". [12]
Critics of judicial review argue that allowing the judiciary to review decisions, and ultimately change outcomes, of decisions made by elected representatives is undemocratic. [34] A second issue regarding judicial review that is frequently criticized is the administrative law's inability to adapt quickly.