Arts & Culture
Judicial Review and Legislative Sovereignty
Quick fact
In the landmark 1803 case Marbury v. Madison, the U.S. Supreme Court declared that it has the power to strike down laws that conflict with the Constitution, establishing judicial review even though the Constitution itself does not explicitly grant it.
Why this is interesting
What happens when a democratically elected parliament passes a law that violates the constitution? Can a court simply strike it down? This is the power of judicial review—an idea that shakes the very foundation of legislative supremacy.
Read the full explanation
Understanding Judicial Review and Legislative Sovereignty
Imagine a legislature as a powerful engine that makes laws. In a system of parliamentary sovereignty, this engine has no brake—whatever it produces becomes law, without any external check. Now imagine a constitution as a set of fundamental principles that this engine must respect. Judicial review is the brake: a court can stop a law that violates those principles. This shift from unlimited legislative power to constitutionally constrained power is the essence of judicial review's impact on legislative sovereignty. It means that even the most democratically elected parliament is not absolute; its laws must align with the higher law of the constitution.
A deeper explanation
The mechanism of judicial review rests on the idea of constitutional supremacy. If the constitution is the supreme law, then any ordinary statute that conflicts with it must yield. Courts, as neutral interpreters of the constitution, are the natural enforcers of this hierarchy. Therefore, judicial review effectively limits legislative sovereignty by making the legislature subject to constitutional constraints. This creates a tension with democratic theory: if the majority elects representatives to make laws, should an unelected judiciary be able to override them? The answer lies in the protection of minority rights and foundational principles that should not be easily overturned by temporary majorities. Thus, judicial review redefines sovereignty: the people, through the constitution, remain sovereign, not the legislature itself.