Judicial review in the United States (English Wikipedia)

Analysis of information sources in references of the Wikipedia article "Judicial review in the United States" in English language version.

refsWebsite

Global rank English rank

13books.google.com

3^rd place

8web.archive.org

1^st place

6wikisource.org

27^th place

51^st place

6loc.gov

70^th place

63^rd place

6findlaw.com

1,478^th place

868^th place

4worldcat.org

5^th place

3doi.org

2^nd place

3jstor.org

26^th place

20^th place

2yale.edu

565^th place

460^th place

2archive.org

6^th place

2constitution.org

7,036^th place

5,927^th place

1vlib.us

low place

1congress.gov

730^th place

468^th place

1archives.gov

446^th place

308^th place

1casetext.com

4,010^th place

2,209^th place

1ncicl.org

low place

1teachingamericanhistory.org

low place

1upenn.edu

702^nd place

520^th place

1cambridge.org

305^th place

264^th place

1merriam-webster.com

209^th place

191^st place

1uchicago.edu

230^th place

214^th place

1indiana.edu

2,113^th place

1,465^th place

1umaryland.edu

low place

7,717^th place

archive.org

Raoul Berger found that twenty-six Convention delegates supported Constitution review, with six opposed. Berger, Raoul (1969). Congress v. The Supreme Court. Harvard University Press. p. 104. Charles Beard counted twenty-five delegates in favor of judicial review and three against. Beard, Charles (1962) [1912]. The Supreme Court and the Constitution. Prentice Hall. p. 69.
Bickel, Alexander (1962). The Least Dangerous Branch: The Supreme Court at the Bar of Politics. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill. p. 1. ISBN 9780300032994.

archives.gov

founders.archives.gov

Hamilton, Alexander (28 May 1788). "The Federalist No. 78". founders.archives.gov. New York. Retrieved 2 October 2024.

books.google.com

The Judicial Branch of State Government: People, Process, and Politics
John Marshall: Definer of a Nation
The People Themselves - Popular Constitutionalism and Judicial Review, Larry Kramer
Elliot, Jonathan (1863) [1836]. Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution. Vol. 2. Philadelphia: Lippincott. p. 489.
Elliot, Jonathan (1863) [1836]. Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution. Vol. 2. Philadelphia: Lippincott. p. 196.
See Menez, Joseph et al., Summaries of Leading Cases on the Constitution, page 125 (2004).
The Supreme Court and the Constitution, Charles A. Beard, pp. 70-71
University of Pennsylvania Law Review and American Law Register
Corwin on the Constitution, Edward Samuel Corwin
Jefferson, Thomas. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Letter to William Jarvis (September 28, 1820).
Schwartz, Bernard. A History of the Supreme Court, page 141 (Oxford University Press US 1995).
McPherson, Edward. A political manual for 1868, pages 350–351 (Philp & Solomons 1868).
Goldstone, Lawrence. Inherently Unequal: The Betrayal of Equal Rights by the Supreme Court, 1865–1903, pages 55–56 (Bloomsbury Publishing USA 2011).

cambridge.org

Istre, Logan S. (2021). "Bench over Ballot: The Fight for Judicial Supremacy and the New Constitutional Politics, 1910–1916". The Journal of the Gilded Age and Progressive Era. 20 (1): 2–23. doi:10.1017/S1537781420000079. ISSN 1537-7814.

casetext.com

Bayard v. Singleton, 1 N.C. 5 (N.C. 1787).

congress.gov

constitution.congress.gov

"Table of Laws Held Unconstitutional in Whole or in Part by the Supreme Court". U.S. Congress. Archived from the original on February 20, 2021. Retrieved February 22, 2021.

constitution.org

Hamilton, Alexander. Federalist #78 (June 14, 1788).
Yates, Robert (writing as "Brutus"). Anti-Federalist Papers(31 January 1788) Archived 17 August 2007 at the Wayback Machine.

doi.org

Corwin, Edward S. (1929). "The "Higher Law" Background of American Constitutional Law". Harvard Law Review. 42 (3). Harvard Law Review Association: 365–409. doi:10.2307/1330694. ISSN 0017-811X. JSTOR 1330694.
Farrand, The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, vol. 2, p. 76. Nathaniel Gorham also made comments along these lines. See Rakove, Jack N. (1997). "The Origins of Judicial Review: A Plea for New Contexts". Stanford Law Review. 49 (5): 1031–64. doi:10.2307/1229247. ISSN 0038-9765. JSTOR 1229247.
Istre, Logan S. (2021). "Bench over Ballot: The Fight for Judicial Supremacy and the New Constitutional Politics, 1910–1916". The Journal of the Gilded Age and Progressive Era. 20 (1): 2–23. doi:10.1017/S1537781420000079. ISSN 1537-7814.

findlaw.com

caselaw.lp.findlaw.com

Marbury v. Madison, 5 US (1 Cranch) 137 (1803).
Satterlee v. Matthewson, 27 U.S. 380 (1829).
Ogden v. Saunders, 25 U.S. 213 (1827).
Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 297 U.S. 288, 346–9 (1936) (Brandeis, concurring) (citing cases)

constitution.findlaw.com

"The Establishment of Judicial Review". Findlaw.
See W.W. Crosskey, Politics and the Constitution in the History of the United States (Chicago: 1953), chs. 27–29, with which compare Hart, Book Review, 67 Harv. L. Rev. 1456 (1954). A brief review of the debate on the subject is Westin, "Introduction: Charles Beard and American Debate over Judicial Review, 1790–1961", in: C. Beard, The Supreme Court and the Constitution (Englewood Cliffs: 1962 reissue of 1938 ed.), 1–34, and bibliography at 133–149. See more at: http://constitution.findlaw.com/article3/annotation13.html#f576

indiana.edu

law.indiana.edu

Caminker, Evan. "Thayerian Deference to Congress and Supreme Court Supermajority Rule: Lessons From the Past Archived 2012-03-09 at the Wayback Machine", 78 Indiana Law Journal 73 (2003).

jstor.org

Corwin, Edward S. (1929). "The "Higher Law" Background of American Constitutional Law". Harvard Law Review. 42 (3). Harvard Law Review Association: 365–409. doi:10.2307/1330694. ISSN 0017-811X. JSTOR 1330694.
Farrand, The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, vol. 2, p. 76. Nathaniel Gorham also made comments along these lines. See Rakove, Jack N. (1997). "The Origins of Judicial Review: A Plea for New Contexts". Stanford Law Review. 49 (5): 1031–64. doi:10.2307/1229247. ISSN 0038-9765. JSTOR 1229247.
Treanor, William Michael (2005). "Judicial Review before "Marbury"". Stanford Law Review. 58 (2): 455–562. ISSN 0038-9765. JSTOR 40040272.

loc.gov

memory.loc.gov

For example, James Madison referred to "the judges who refused to execute an unconstitutional law" in a Rhode Island case. Farrand, Max (1911). The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787. Vol. 2. New Haven: Yale University Press. p. 28. Elbridge Gerry noted that "in some states, the judges had actually set aside laws, as being against the constitution." Farrand, The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, vol. 1, p. 97.
See Farrand, Max (1911). The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787. Vol. 1. New Haven: Yale University Press. p. 97.
Farrand, The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, vol. 2, p. 76. Nathaniel Gorham also made comments along these lines. See Rakove, Jack N. (1997). "The Origins of Judicial Review: A Plea for New Contexts". Stanford Law Review. 49 (5): 1031–64. doi:10.2307/1229247. ISSN 0038-9765. JSTOR 1229247.
Ibid., p. 93. Delegates approving of judicial review also included James Wilson and Gouverneur Morris, among others. See Prakash and Yoo, "The Origins of Judicial Review", 70 U. of Chicago Law Review at 941–43.
Farrand, Max (1911). The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787. Vol. 2. New Haven: Yale University Press. p. 78.
James Madison at one point said that the courts' power of judicial review should be limited to cases of a judiciary nature: "He doubted whether it was not going too far to extend the jurisdiction of the Court generally to cases arising under the Constitution and whether it ought not to be limited to cases of a judiciary nature. The right of expounding the Constitution in cases not of this nature ought not to be given to that department." Farrand, Max (1911). The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787. Vol. 2. New Haven: Yale University Press. p. 430. Madison wanted to clarify that the courts would not have a free-floating power to declare unconstitutional any law that was passed; rather, the courts would be able to rule on constitutionality of laws only when those laws were properly presented to them in the context of a court case that came before them. See Burr, Charles, "Unconstitutional Laws and the Federal Judicial Power", 60 U. Pennsylvania Law Review 624, 630 (1912). No change in the language was made in response to Madison's comment.

merriam-webster.com

"Unstatutable – Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary". Merriam-Webster. Retrieved 8 May 2013.

ncicl.org

Brown, Andrew. "Bayard v. Singleton: North Carolina as the Pioneer of Judicial Review". North Carolina Institute of Constitutional Law. Archived from the original on 2019-08-16. Retrieved 2019-08-16.

teachingamericanhistory.org

"The Problem of Judicial Review – Teaching American History". Archived from the original on 2011-06-30. Retrieved 2011-05-11.

uchicago.edu

press-pubs.uchicago.edu

"Article 3, Section 2, Clause 2: Brutus, no. 14".

umaryland.edu

law.umaryland.edu

Nackenoff, Carol. "Constitutional Reforms to Enhance Democratic Participation and Deliberation: Not All Clearly Trigger the Article V Amendment Process Archived 2012-03-19 at the Wayback Machine", 67 Maryland Law Review 62, 65 (2007).

upenn.edu

scholarship.law.upenn.edu

Judicial Review and Non-enforcement at the Founding, University of Pennsylvania, p. 496

vlib.us

"Marbury v. Madison – John Marshall – 1803 – AMDOCS: Documents for the Study of American History".

web.archive.org

"Table of Laws Held Unconstitutional in Whole or in Part by the Supreme Court". U.S. Congress. Archived from the original on February 20, 2021. Retrieved February 22, 2021.
Brown, Andrew. "Bayard v. Singleton: North Carolina as the Pioneer of Judicial Review". North Carolina Institute of Constitutional Law. Archived from the original on 2019-08-16. Retrieved 2019-08-16.
While the Constitution does not explicitly authorize judicial review, it also does not explicitly prohibit it, as did the Virginia Constitution of 1776. That Virginia Constitution said: "All power of suspending laws, or the execution of laws, by any authority, without consent of the representatives of the people, is injurious to their rights, and ought not to be exercised." Virginia Constitution of 1776 Archived 2008-06-04 at the Wayback Machine via Avalon Project at Yale Law School.
"The Problem of Judicial Review – Teaching American History". Archived from the original on 2011-06-30. Retrieved 2011-05-11.
Yates, Robert (writing as "Brutus"). Anti-Federalist Papers(31 January 1788) Archived 17 August 2007 at the Wayback Machine.
Lincoln, Abraham. First Inaugural Address Archived 2007-08-17 at the Wayback Machine (March 4, 1861).
Caminker, Evan. "Thayerian Deference to Congress and Supreme Court Supermajority Rule: Lessons From the Past Archived 2012-03-09 at the Wayback Machine", 78 Indiana Law Journal 73 (2003).
Nackenoff, Carol. "Constitutional Reforms to Enhance Democratic Participation and Deliberation: Not All Clearly Trigger the Article V Amendment Process Archived 2012-03-19 at the Wayback Machine", 67 Maryland Law Review 62, 65 (2007).

wikisource.org

en.wikisource.org

Congress, United States (1845). "Public Acts of the Third Congress, 1st Session, Chapter 45". United States Statutes at Large, Volume 1. Little & Brown – via Wikisource.
Hamilton, Alexander. Federalist No. 78 (June 14, 1788). See also Federalist No. 81, which says: "[T]he Constitution ought to be the standard of construction for the laws, and ... wherever there is an evident opposition, the laws ought to give place to the Constitution." Federalist No. 81 (June 28, 1788)
Federalist No. 80 (June 21, 1788)
Federalist No. 82 (July 2, 1788)
Seven states formally rejected the Kentucky and Virginia resolutions and transmitted their rejections to Kentucky and Virginia (Delaware, Massachusetts, New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, and Vermont). See Elliot, Jonathan (1907) [1836]. Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution . Vol. 4 (expanded 2nd ed.). Philadelphia: Lippincott. pp. 538–539. ISBN 0-8337-1038-9.. Three states passed resolutions expressing disapproval but did not transmit formal responses to Kentucky and Virginia (Maryland, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey). Anderson, Frank Maloy (1899). "Contemporary Opinion of the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions" . American Historical Review. pp. 45–63, 225–244. {{cite book}}: Missing or empty |title= (help). The other four states took no action.
Elliot, Jonathan (1907) [1836]. "Answers of the Several State Legislatures: State of Vermont" . Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution . Vol. 4 (expanded 2nd ed.). Philadelphia: Lippincott. pp. 538–539. ISBN 0-8337-1038-9.. The other states taking the position that the constitutionality of federal laws is a question for the federal courts, not the states, were New York, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, and Pennsylvania. The Governor of Delaware and a Committee of the Maryland legislature also took this position. The remaining states did not address this issue. Anderson, Frank Maloy (1899). "Contemporary Opinion of the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions" . American Historical Review. pp. 45–63, 225–244. {{cite book}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

worldcat.org

search.worldcat.org

Corwin, Edward S. (1929). "The "Higher Law" Background of American Constitutional Law". Harvard Law Review. 42 (3). Harvard Law Review Association: 365–409. doi:10.2307/1330694. ISSN 0017-811X. JSTOR 1330694.
Farrand, The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, vol. 2, p. 76. Nathaniel Gorham also made comments along these lines. See Rakove, Jack N. (1997). "The Origins of Judicial Review: A Plea for New Contexts". Stanford Law Review. 49 (5): 1031–64. doi:10.2307/1229247. ISSN 0038-9765. JSTOR 1229247.
Treanor, William Michael (2005). "Judicial Review before "Marbury"". Stanford Law Review. 58 (2): 455–562. ISSN 0038-9765. JSTOR 40040272.
Istre, Logan S. (2021). "Bench over Ballot: The Fight for Judicial Supremacy and the New Constitutional Politics, 1910–1916". The Journal of the Gilded Age and Progressive Era. 20 (1): 2–23. doi:10.1017/S1537781420000079. ISSN 1537-7814.

yale.edu

While the Constitution does not explicitly authorize judicial review, it also does not explicitly prohibit it, as did the Virginia Constitution of 1776. That Virginia Constitution said: "All power of suspending laws, or the execution of laws, by any authority, without consent of the representatives of the people, is injurious to their rights, and ought not to be exercised." Virginia Constitution of 1776 Archived 2008-06-04 at the Wayback Machine via Avalon Project at Yale Law School.
Lincoln, Abraham. First Inaugural Address Archived 2007-08-17 at the Wayback Machine (March 4, 1861).