Constitutional Law Chapter One: Judicial Review And Constitutional Structure
Lecture Notes: Constitution Law 2025 – Full Outline
Understanding Judicial Review: The Backbone of Constitutional Law
This episode dives into the power of judicial review and why it sits at the core of United States constitutional law. We walk through the political brilliance of Chief Justice John Marshall in Marbury v. Madison, the birth of the Court’s authority to strike down acts of Congress, and how that decision still frames modern debates about the separation of powers.
You will hear how a late–night flurry of “midnight judges,” a refused commission, and a seemingly impossible dilemma gave Marshall the opportunity to announce a simple but revolutionary idea: the Constitution is supreme law, and it is the judiciary’s duty to say what the law is.
What we unpack in this episode
- The origin story of judicial review and the stakes in Marbury v. Madison.
- The “six rules” emerging from Marshall’s opinion: remedy, constitutional supremacy, conflict resolution, judicial duty, and review of executive and criminal actions.
- How Article III justiciability cabins judicial power: no advisory opinions, only real “cases or controversies.”
- The role of Congress and the Exceptions Clause, including the lesson of Ex parte McCardle.
- Why some issues are unreviewable political questions left to other branches.
Timing, Injury, and Justiciability
Judicial power does not extend to every interesting dispute. Timing is everything: come too early and you face a ripeness problem; come too late and the case is moot. The plaintiff also needs a concrete, non-speculative injury to establish standing. When the alleged wrong is a vague “what if,” the Court steps back and the issue often becomes an unreviewable question better suited to the political branches.
Across all of this runs a single theme: separation of powers. Judicial review is powerful, but it operates inside a constant negotiation with Congress and the Executive over who decides what, and when.
Quick Takeaways
- Marshall’s opinion in Marbury is a blueprint of political genius.
- Judicial review makes the Constitution enforceable, not just inspirational text.
- Cases that are too early (ripeness) or too late (mootness) fall outside Article III power.
- Speculative “what if” injuries usually fail standing and remain unreviewable.
Keywords: judicial review, Marshall’s political genius, ripeness, mootness, standing, unreviewable questions, political question doctrine, separation of powers, legal principles, landmark court cases.
Weitere Episoden von „Law School“
Verpasse keine Episode von “Law School” und abonniere ihn in der kostenlosen GetPodcast App.
