...the supreme law of the land. Marshall began with a question that was "deeply interesting" to America: "whether an act, repugnant to the constitution, can become the law of the land," and from thence, to the theory that answered the question. "Happily," he continued, the question was...

...constitution; and it becomes necessary to enquire whether a jurisdiction, so conferred, can be exercised. The question, whether an act, repugnant to the constitution,...have been long and well established, to decide it. That the people have an original right to establish, for their future government, such principles as,...

...that it is "emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is." The question whether an act repugnant to the constitution...question deeply interesting to the United States. . . . That the people have an original right to establish for their future government such principles...

...reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing." In 1803 John Marshall found "The question whether an act repugnant to the constitution can become the law of the land deeply interesting to the United States."36 In his landmark opinion, Marbury v. Madison, Marshall wrote:...

...additional reason for rejecting such other construction, and for adhering to their obvious meaning. . . . The question, whether an act, repugnant to the constitution,...have been long and well established, to decide it. That the people have an original right to establish, for their future government, such principles as,...

...Congress's judgment over that of the Constitution's framers, Marshall moved toward his conclusion. "The question whether an act repugnant to the Constitution...have been long and well established, to decide it." Those principles could best be understood, he suggested, by asking a single question: Did the Court...

...jurisdiction.6 As far back as 1803, the Supreme Court explicitly held that courts have power to examine 'whether an Act, repugnant to the Constitution, can become the law of the land'. In a celebrated opinion, delivered by Chief 3 Justice Frankfurter in Maryland v. Baltimore Radio Show...

...constitution; and it becomes necessary to enquire whether a jurisdiction so conferred, can be exercised. The question, whether an act, repugnant to the constitution,...have been long and well established, to decide it. ment, such principles as, in their opinion, shall most conduce to their own happiness, is the basis,...

...law must be invalidated. . SOURŒ: United Mizrahi Bank Ltd. V. Migdal Village, 49 (4) PD 221 (1995). The question, whether an act, repugnant to the constitution,...proportioned to its interest. It seems only necessary to recognise certain principles, supposed to have been long and well established, to decide it. That the...

...in the same language that had been used to discuss repugnancy under the transatlantic constitution: "The question, whether an act, repugnant to the constitution,...not of an intricacy proportioned to its interest." Indeed, the question was not hard if one followed the pattern of keeping the idea of repugnancy and...