Question 1 of 20 · Structure and design of the U.S. government
Changing and Interpreting the Constitution
Excerpt 1: Article V of the U.S. Constitution (1787)
(1) "The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress…"
Excerpt 2: Chief Justice John Marshall, Supreme Court opinion in Marbury v. Madison (1803)
(2) "It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each."
(3) "Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void; and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument."
Word help: deem = judge, consider; ratified = formally approved; province = proper area of responsibility; expound = explain in detail; phraseology = wording; repugnant to = in conflict with; void = having no legal force; instrument = formal legal document (here, the Constitution).
In Marbury v. Madison (Excerpt 2), Chief Justice Marshall wrote that "a law repugnant to the constitution is void" and that it is the duty of the judicial department "to say what the law is."
Which statement best describes the significance of this reasoning?
Hint
What can a court now do to a law passed by Congress? And does the excerpt say the Constitution spells this power out in so many words?
Step-by-step solution
Where the answer is: Paragraph 2: "It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is." Paragraph 3: "a law repugnant to the constitution is void; and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument."
Reasoning:
- If a law conflicts with ("is repugnant to") the Constitution, it is void, with no legal force.
- The courts' job is to decide what the law is, so courts decide whether a law conflicts with the Constitution.
- This is judicial review: the power of courts to strike down laws and government actions that violate the Constitution. It is a major check by the judicial branch on Congress and the President.
- Choice D is the subtle trap. The words "judicial review" do not appear in Article III. Marshall argued the power follows from the nature of a written constitution ("supposed to be essential to all written constitutions"), and Marbury established it in 1803.
- Choice B gives courts lawmaking power, which Marshall does not claim. Choice C reverses the relationship: the Constitution, not Congress, is supreme.
Answer: It established that courts can strike down laws that conflict with the Constitution, a check on the other branches.
Tip: Judicial review = courts can declare laws unconstitutional. It came from a Supreme Court case (Marbury v. Madison, 1803), not from an explicit clause of the Constitution.