Some trivia: The Supreme Court found 158 laws unconstitutional between 1803 and 2002. Click here for a list of them all.
I stumbled across a couple items which focus on issues and controversies associated with it judicial review. You might find them helpful as you prep for the final.
- The Supreme Court vs. Congress.
The author points out three categories of cases involving judicial review:
First, the Court has declared many federal laws unconstitutional because they infringe upon individual rights protected by the Constitution, particularly by the First Amendment.
A second category of cases involves the Court's function as arbitrator among the branches of government. One of the key protections of freedom in the Constitution is the structural separation of powers among the three branches. Congress must pass laws, the president must execute them, and the courts must interpret those laws. If one branch encroaches on the authority of others, there is a danger that such encroachment will upset the balance of power between them and increase the possibility of one branch dominating the others.
The third area involves the most questionable use of Supreme Court power. The Court assumes the power to say to Congress, not that it violated anyone's rights or that it passed a law that crossed the line that separated one branch of government from another, but simply that Congress lacked the power to act. States have the power to pass any law they choose (subject to both state and federal constitutional restraints). But when Congress passes a law, it must rely on specific grants of power contained in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution.- The Supreme Court and Congress.
This author suggests that laws struck down as unconstitutional are not necessarily completely nullified.
When most Americans read that the Supreme Court has used judicial review to strike down federal legislation, they usually understand the Court’s action as an invalidation of the legislation. In other words, the Court has undone the work of Congress and ended the life of the statute—kaput, poof, and it’s gone. It is not surprising that this would be the common reaction: it is how the Court’s power of judicial review is most commonly taught in high school, college, and even law school classes on the subject. However, what many deem to be conventional wisdom about the death sentence imposed on legislation by judicial review turns out to be false wisdom. The reality is that judicial review does not usually end the life of federal legislation, and Congress often responds to the Court by amending legislation to make it constitutional. This is an important insight into the balance of powers between the Court and Congress because that relationship is nearly always mischaracterized as one in which the Court has the final say over the constitutionality of a statute.
\
