titution of the United
States furnish additional arguments in favor of its rejection. The
judicial power of the United States is extended to all cases arising
under the Constitution. Could it be the intention of those who gave this
power, to say that in using it the Constitution should not be looked
into? That a case arising under the Constitution should be decided
without examining the instrument under which it arises? This is too
extravagant to be maintained.
"In some cases, then, the Constitution must be looked into by the
judges. And if they can open it at all, what part of it are they
forbidden to read or to obey? There are many other parts of the
Constitution which serve to illustrate this subject.... 'No person,'
says the Constitution, 'shall be convicted of treason unless on the
testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession
in open court.' Here the language of the Constitution is addressed
especially to the courts. It prescribes, directly for them, a rule of
evidence not to be departed from. If the legislature should change that
rule, and declare one witness, or a confession out of court, sufficient
for conviction, must the constitutional principle yield to the
legislative act?...
"It is also not entirely unworthy of observation, that in declaring what
shall be the supreme law of the land, the Constitution itself is first
mentioned; and not the laws of the United States generally, but those
only which shall be made in pursuance of the Constitution, have that
rank.
"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."
There is not a false step in Marshall's argument. It is, for instance,
not contended that the language of the Constitution establishes judicial
review but only that it "confirms and strengthens the principle."
Granting the finality of judicial decisions and that they may not be
validly disturbed by legislative enactment, the argument is logically
conclusive, whatever practical difficulties it may ignore.
Turning back to the case itself, we ought finally to note how Marshall
utilized this opportunity to make manifest the newly found solidarity
of the Court. For the first time in its history the Court was one voice,
speaking throu
|