¹ “The Judicial Review of Statutes in Continental Europe,” West Virginia Law Quarterly, Vol. 41, p. 112 (1935)Google Scholar.

² See Bonner, R. J. and Smith, G., The Administration of Justice from Homer to Aristotle, Vol. 1 (Chicago, 1930), pp. 264–267Google Scholar, Vol. 2 (Chicago, 1938), pp. 290, 296–297; also Aristotle, Constitution of Athens, Ch. 29.

³ See Botsford, G. W., The Roman Assemblies (New York, 1909), pp. 107, 113, 405, 457 and 459Google Scholar, for instances of the Senate's annulling of various enactments; also Cicero, De legibus, Book 2, Ch. 6.

⁴ De legibus et consuetudinibus Angliae, F. 34, F. 107. See especially McIlwain, C. H., The Growth of Political Thought in the West (New York, 1932), pp. 195–197Google Scholar.

⁵ De laudibus legum Anglie, Ch. 34.

⁶ See Olivier-Martin, F., Histoire du droit française des origines à la Révolution (Paris, 1948), pp. 541–552Google Scholar; Zeller, Gaston, Les institutions de la France au XVI^e siècle (Paris, 1948), pp. 155–161Google Scholar.

⁷ Madison, James, Journal of the Federal Convention (Scott, ed., Chicago, 1893), p. 534Google Scholar.

⁸ For discussions of the theoretical background of the development of judicial review and references to the literature on the subject, see Wright, B. F., American Interpretations of Natural Law (Cambridge, 1931)Google Scholar; Haines, C. G., The Revival of Natural Law Concepts (Cambridge, 1930)Google Scholar; Corwin, E. S., “The ‘Higher Law’ Background of American Constitutional Law,” Harvard Law Review, Vol. 42, pp. 149–185, 365–409 (1928–1929)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁹ 8 Coke 118a. For comment on the case, see Plucknett, T. F. T., “Bonham's Case and Judicial Review,” Harvard Law Review, Vol. 40, pp. 30–70 (1926)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹⁰ 5 Howard State Trials 365. For views similar to Coke's in Dr. Bonham's Case, see Day v. Savadge, Hobart 85 (1614); City of London v. Wood, 12 Mod. Rep. 678 (1701). After service in Parliament, Coke seems to have changed his views and to have regarded Parliament as the supreme law deolaring body, 4 Institutes 36.

¹¹ See Wormuth, F. D., The Origins of Modern Constitutionalism (New York, 1949), pp. 43–159, 169–210Google Scholar; McIlwain, C. H., The High Court of Parliament and Its Supremacy (New Haven, 1910)Google Scholar, Chs. 4 and 5, and Constitutionalism Ancient and Modern (Ithaca, 1940), pp. 95–149Google Scholar; Pound, Roscoe, “Common Law and Legislation,” Harvard Law Review, Vol. 21, pp. 383–407 (1908)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Corwin, op. cit. (above, n. 8).

¹² See Wright, B. F., The Growth of American Constitutional Law (New York, 1942)Google Scholar, Chs. 1 and 2; Russell, E. B., The Review of American Colonial Legislation by the King in Council (New York, 1915)Google Scholar; Schlesinger, A. M., “Colonial Appeals to the Privy Council,” Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 28, pp. 279–297, 433–450 (1913)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Corwin, E. S., Court over Constitution (Princeton, 1938)Google Scholar.

¹³ See Adams, John, Works, Vol. 2, p. 522Google Scholar, for a summary of Otis' argument; see also the argument of George Mason in Robin v. Hardaway, Jeff. 109 (1772).

¹⁴ Pennsylvania Constitution of 1776, Sect. 47; see also Vermont Constitution of 1777, Sect. 44.

¹⁵ For discussion of state precedents, see Corwin, E. S., The Doctrine of Judicial Review (Princeton, 1914)Google Scholar, Note 5 on “Alleged Precedents for Judicial Review,” pp. 71 ff.; the Note on “Development of Judicial Power,” in Dodd, W. F., Cases and Materials on Constitutional Law (3d ed., St. Paul, 1942), pp. 8–13Google Scholar; and Haines, C. G., The American Doctrine of Judicial Supremacy (2d. ed., Berkeley, 1932), pp. 88–121Google Scholar.

¹⁶ See the discussion in Beard, C. A., The Supreme Court and the Constitution (New York, 1912), pp. 17 ff.Google Scholar, and the remarks of Corwin, , Court over Constitution, pp. 26 ff.Google Scholar; also The Federalist, No. 78. The fact that some members of the Convention favored judicial review is not conclusive proof that the Convention intended that the judiciary exercise the power.

¹⁷ 1 Cranch 137 (1803). The literature on judicial review in the United States is voluminous; in addition to the writings previously cited, the following may be mentioned: Warren, C., The Supreme Court in United States History (3 vols., Boston, 1922)Google Scholar; Swisher, C. B., The Growth of Constitutional Power in the United States (Chicago, 1947)Google Scholar; Coxe, Brinton, An Essay on Judicial Power and Unconstitutional Legislation (Philadelphia, 1893)Google Scholar.

¹⁸ Title 3, Ch. 5, Art. 3.

¹⁹ See Pound, Roscoe, “A Comparison of Systems of Law,” University of Pittsburgh Law Review, Vol. 10, pp. 271–272 (1948)Google Scholar.

²⁰ See Garner, J. W., Political Science and Government (New York, 1928), p. 766Google Scholar.

²¹ The discussion in the French Constituent Assembly of 1945–46 on whether the constitution may limit popular sovereignty may be noted. Pierre Cot maintained that when Rousseau spoke of “limits of sovereignty” he referred to those imposed by the contrat social, and hence the phrase did not apply to a constitution. Séances de la Commission de la Constitution: Comptes rendus analytiques, imprimés en execution de la résolution votée par l'Assemblée le 25 avril 1946 (Paris, 1946), pp. 407–408Google Scholar.

²² Esmein, A., Éléments de droit constitutionnel français et comparé (8th ed., Paris, 1927), Vol. 1, pp. 575–576Google Scholar; Garner, J. W., “Judicial Control of Administrative and Legislative Acts in France,” American Political Science Review, Vol. 9, pp. 637–665 (1915)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

²³ Duguit, L., Traité de droit constitutionnel (3d ed., Paris, 1930), pp. 691, 696–709Google Scholar.

²⁴ Constitution of the Year VIII, Arts. 21, 37; Sénatus-consulte, 28, floreal, Year XII, Arts. 60–68, 72. For details and references on Siéyès proposal, see Esmein, pp. 637–638, and Duguit, p. 716.

²⁵ See J. W. Garner, op. cit. (above, n. 22); Auboyer-Treuille, J., L'évolution des attributions legislatives du Conseil d'Etat (Paris, 1938)Google Scholar.

²⁶ See Constitution of 1791, Title 5; Constitution of the Year III, Arts. 375, 377; Constitution of 1848, Arts. 110 and 111 and the Preamble, in which recognition is given to “rights and duties existing before and superior to positive laws.”

²⁷ The American Commonwealth (3d ed., New York, 1906), p. 241Google Scholar.

²⁸ Art. 63.

²⁹ Rumania, decisions of the Tribunal of Ilfove, Feb. 2, 1912, Court of Cassation, March 16, 1912; Norway, Supreme Court of Norway, June 3, 1890, Supreme Court of Christiana, Feb. 2, 1893; Greece, First Chamber of Areopagus, No. 145, 1904. For references to the literature on these decisions, see Esmein, p. 633; Duguit, pp. 726–728, 732.

³⁰ Constitution of 1852, Arts. 25–27, 29.

³¹ Duguit, p. 721.

³² See remarks of Blanc, Louis, Jour. off., March 12, 1873, p. 1707Google Scholar.

³³ See propositions of Jules Roche, Feb. 28, 1903, and of Charles Benoist, Jan. 28, 1903, Journal officiel, Chambre, , Documents parlementaire, sess. ord., p. 97, p. 99Google Scholar.

³⁴ See Laferrière, J., Manuel de droit constitutionnel (2d ed., Paris, 1947), pp. 330–340Google Scholar; Coumoul, J., Traité du pouvoir judicaire (2d ed., Paris, 1911)Google Scholar, Ch. 6; Garner, op. cit. (above, n. 22).

³⁵ Rappard, W. E., The Government of Switzerland (New York, 1936), p. 50, p. 90Google Scholar, and Le contrôle de la conslitutionalité des lois fédérales par le juge aux Etats- Unis et en Suisse (Bâle, 1934)Google Scholar. It may be noted that Swiss cantonal courts have refused to apply cantonal laws on grounds of conflict with the cantonal or federal constitution.

³⁶ Garner, J. W., “The German Judiciary,” Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 18, p. 529 (1903)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Mattern, Johannes, Principles of the Constitutional Jurisprudence of the German National Republic (Baltimore, 1928), p. 251Google Scholar.

³⁷ For France, see Garner, , “Judicial Control of Administrative and Legislative Acts in France,” p. 659Google Scholar; for Germany, see Garner, , “The German Judiciary,” p. 526Google Scholar. Laband, , Staatsrecht, Vol. 2, pp. 44 ff.Google Scholar, endorsed the opposite doctrine, and Radin, op. cit. (above, n. 1), p. 125, stresses Laband's view. In some German states, notably Prussia, the courts were forbidden to inquire into the formal validity of laws.

³⁸ Radin, p. 119.

³⁹ Jaffin, G., “New World Constitutional Harmony: A Pan-Americanadian Panorama,” Columbia Law Review, Vol. 42, p. 44, p. 47 n. 109 (1942)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, asserts that Colombia and Haiti at first followed the French example of the sénat conservateur; see, for Colombia, Constitution of Cundinamarca, 1811, Title 1, Art. 9. For the later adoption of judicial review, see Constitution of Haiti, 1843, Art. 162; Colombia, Constitutional Law of 1910, Art. 41.

⁴⁰ Guatemala, Constitution of 1879; Peru, Constitution of 1860.

⁴¹ Argentina, Constitution of 1860, Art. 100; Brazil, Constitution of 1891, Art. 59 (1), 60; Mexico, Constitution of 1857, Art. 101.

⁴² Honduras, Constitution of 1894, Arts. 118, 126, 128; El Salvador, Constitution of 1886, Arts. 37, 102; Nicaragua, Constitution of 1911, Arts. 63, 124.

⁴³ Casanovas v. Hord, 8 Phil. 125 (1907). On the basis for the exercise of judicial review, see Fernando, E. M., “Judicial Supremacy,” Philippine Law Journal, Vol. 23, pp. 613–614 (1948)Google Scholar. Statutory appeal did lie, however, from the Islands Supreme Court to the United States Supreme Court, Philippine Bill of 1902, Sect. 10.

⁴⁴ See Dawson, R. M., The Government of Canada (Toronto, 1947)Google Scholar, Ch. 20; Mendelson, W., “Dual Federalism in Canada, Australia and the United States,” in Shannon, J. B. (ed.), The Study of Comparative Government (New York, 1949)Google Scholar; Wynes, W. A., Legislative and Executive Power in Australia (Sydney, 1936)Google Scholar, Ch. 3; Wheare, K. C., Federal Government (2d ed., London, 1949)Google Scholar. The appeal to the Privy Council was a much more important factor in Canada than in Australia, where the appeal was greatly restricted.

⁴⁵ Kitazawa, N., The Government of Japan (Princeton, 1929), pp. 30, 86–7Google Scholar.

⁴⁶ See Temple of Heaven Draft Constitution, 1913, Art. 94.

⁴⁷ See Bryce, , Studies in History and Jurisprudence (New York, 1901), p. 378Google Scholar; Lowell, A. Lawrence, The Government of England (new ed., New York, 1912), Vol. 1, p. 7Google Scholar.

⁴⁸ Introductory Law, Arts. 1–3; Constitutional Charter, Art. 102.

⁴⁹ Laferrière, op. cit. (above, n. 34), p. 329.

⁵⁰ Arts. 38, 81. Under the Finnish Constitution of 1919, Art. 58, the Supreme Court and the Supreme Administrative Court may formally request legislation modifying or interpreting laws and ordinances.

⁵¹ Friedrich, C. J., “The Issue of Judicial Review in Germany,” Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 43, pp. 188–200 (1928)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Mattern, op. cit. (above, n. 36), pp. 249–304, 570–609.

⁵² One Nazi legalist, Huber, Ernst R., Verfassung (Hamburg, 1937), p. 26Google Scholar, argued that Rechtsstaat philosophy and judicial control of politics had contributed to the “catastrophe” of the Weimar regime.

⁵³ Grant, J. A. C., “Judicial Review of Legislation under the Austrian Constitution of 1920,” American Political Science Review, Vol. 28, pp. 670–676 (1934)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kelsen, Hans, “La garantie jurisdictionnelle de la constitution,” Revue de droit public et de la science politique en France et à l'étranger, Vol. 35, pp. 197–259 (1928)Google Scholar and “Judicial Review of Legislation,” “Journal of Politics, Vol. 4, pp. 183–200 (1942)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁵⁴ Constitution Act, 1922, Art. 2 and Constitution of 1922, Arts. 65, 66. See Mansergh, Nicholas, The Irish Free State (London, 1934), pp. 315–327Google Scholar, for discussion of judicial review and appeals to the Privy Council under the Free State constitution.

Constitution of 1937, Art. 34. For cases in which the issue of unconstitutionality entered, see (1940) I.R. 136, (1940) I.R. 470, (1947) I.R. 77.

⁵⁵ Arts. 121, 123.

⁵⁶ Art. 123. The National Assembly was given certain powers with respect to safeguarding the constitution, Arts. 91 (1), 123.

⁵⁷ Rumania, Constitution of 1923, Art. 103; Greece, Constitution of 1927, Art. 5.

⁵⁸ Art. 104.

⁵⁹ Vishinsky, A. Y., The Law of the Soviet State (Babb, trans., New York, 1948), p. 340Google Scholar. Towster, Compare Julian, Political Power in the U.S.S.R.: 1917–1947 (New York, 1948), pp. 300–310Google Scholar.

⁶⁰ Vishinsky, pp. 339–340.

⁶¹ Chile, Constitution of 1925, Art. 86; Guatemala, Constitutional Modifications of 1935, Art. 23; Uruguay, Constitution of 1934, Arts. 232–235.

⁶² Constitution of 1940, Art. 6.

⁶³ Arts. 26, 123, 133, 231.

⁶⁴ Art. 163.

⁶⁵ Art. 149. See also, Cuba, Constitution of 1934, Art. 78; Venezuela, Constitution of 1936, Art. 123; Haiti, Constitution of 1929, Arts. 26, 99. The citizen's action apparently first appeared in Colombia, 1910.

⁶⁶ Arts. 182, 183, 194.

⁶⁷ Arts. 83–86.

⁶⁸ Art. 103.

⁶⁹ See, Transjordan, Constitution of 1928, Arts. 42–55; Hejaz, Constitution of 1926, Art. 6; Iraq, Constitution of 1925, Arts. 75–80.

⁷⁰ Art. 2.

⁷¹ Arts. 108, 139.

⁷² Art. 93 (1).

⁷³ Art. 140.

⁷⁴ Art. 8, Sect. 10.

⁷⁵ Gamboa, M. J., An Introduction to Philippine Law (4th ed., Manila, 1939)Google Scholar and “The Meeting of the Roman and the Common Law in the Philippines,” Seminar, Vol. 4, pp. 84–98 (1946)Google Scholar; Fernando, Enrique M., “Judicial Supremacy,” Philippine Law Journal, Vol. 23, pp. 98–110 (1948)Google Scholar; E. Lazaro y Mina, “The Doctrine of Stare Decisis and the Supreme Court of the Philippine Islands,” ibid., Vol. 16, pp. 404–419 (1937).

⁷⁶ See Haines, C. G., “Some Phases of the Theory and Practice of Judicial Review of Legislation in Foreign Countries,” American Political Science Review, Vol. 24, pp. 583–605 (1930)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, for references to French writings on judicial review in the interwar period. The volume by ProfessorLambert, , Le gouvernment des juges et la lutte contre la législation sociale aux États-Unis (Paris, 1921)Google Scholar, presented an important argument against judicial review.

⁷⁷ See Arts. 33–37 of the projet, in Berlia, G. (ed.), Les constitutions et les principales lois politiques de la France depuis 1789 (7th ed., Paris, 1952), pp. 392–393Google Scholar.

⁷⁸ See Séances, Constitutional Commission, First Constituent Assembly, document cited (above, n. 21), pp. 133–142, especially remarks of Philip (Soc.), Coste-Floret (MRP), and Fajon (Comm.). For a rightist proposal, see proposition of Bardoux, J. to establish a supreme court of justice with powers of review, Documents de l'Assemblée Nationale Constituante élue le 21 octobre 1945, No. 381 (Paris, 1946)Google Scholar.

⁷⁹ Séances, pp. 141–142.

⁸⁰ Ibid., pp. 642–643. M. de Menthon, MRP, rapporteur général, resigned his post at this juncture, being replaced by Pierre Cot.

⁸¹ Arts. 91–93.

⁸² In agreeing to except the Preamble from the competence of the Constitutional Committee, Coste-Floret declared: “We agree to make a concession, but our position has not changed, and we feel that the constitutional control of the declaration of rights is and remains possible, and that it will be established one day.” Séances de la Commission de la Constitution: Comptes rendus analytiques, imprimés en execution de la résolution votée par l'Assemblée le 2 octobre 1946 (Paris, 1946), pp. 104–105Google Scholar.

⁸³ See deliberation of the Committee, in Berlia, op. cit. (above, n. 77), pp. 606–607.

⁸⁴ See Prelot, M., Précis de droit constitutionnel (Paris, 1949), pp. 335–336Google Scholar; Duverger, M., Cours de droit constitutionnel (4th ed., Paris, 1947), pp. 124–127Google Scholar; Burdeau, G., Manuel de droit constitutionnel (5th ed., Paris, 1947), pp. 65–74Google Scholar.

⁸⁵ See, especially, Lambert c. Jourdan, Jan. 30, 1948, in which the Court of Appeal of Paris declared that “a constitutional law prevails over ordinary laws.” Revue critique de droit international privé, Vol. 37, p. 493 (1948)Google Scholar.

⁸⁶ Radin, op. cit. (above, n. 1), p. 118.

⁸⁷ Arts. 134–137.

⁸⁸ Legge costituzionale, 9 febbraio 1948, n. 1, Gazz, uff., 20 febbraio 1948, n. 43, Art. 1.

⁸⁹ Atti Parlementari, Camera dei Deputati, Documenti—Disegni di legge e relazioni, 1949, N. 469-A. See Tesauro, A., “La Corte Costituzionale,” Rassegna di diritto pubblico, Vol. 5, pp. 205–253 (1950)Google Scholar; Galeotti, Sereo, La garanzia costituzionale (Milan, 1950)Google Scholar.

⁹⁰ Regio decreto legislativo, 15 maggio 1946, n. 455, Gazz. uff., 10 giugno 1946, n. 133–3, Arts. 25–29; Legge costituzionale, 26 febbraio 1948, n. 2, Gazz. uff., 9 marzo 1948, n. 58. Reperlorio generale: Annuale della giurisprudenza italiana, 1949, p. 559Google Scholar.

⁹¹ Art. 100 (1), (3).

⁹² Arts. 18, 19, 21. See also Arts. 92, 93, 94, 98, 99.

⁹³ BGBl. I, p. 243 (1951). See Leibholz, Gerhard, “The Federal Constitutional Court in Germany and the ‘Southwest Case’,” American Political Science Review, Vol. 44, pp. 723–731 (1952)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁹⁴ See Constitution for Rhineland-Palatinate (1947), Arts. 134–136; Constitution of Wuerttemberg-Baden (1946), Art 92.

⁹⁵ See Baeck, P. L., “Postwar Judicial Review of Legislative Acts: Austria,” Tulane Law Review, Vol. 26, pp. 70–78 (1951)Google Scholar.

⁹⁶ Constitution of Albania (1946), Art. 54; Constitution of Bulgaria (1947), Art. 35; Constitution of Yugoslavia (1946), Art. 74; Constitution of Czechoslovakia (1948), Art. 65.

⁹⁷ Art. 66.

⁹⁸ Constitution of Albania (1946), Arts. 29–31; Constitution of Rumania (1948), Art. 34; Constitution of Yugoslavia (1946), Art. 40; Constitution of Bulgaria (1947), Art. 89.

⁹⁹ Arts. 67, 76, 189.

¹⁰⁰ See, however, Christensen, A. S., The Evolution of Latin American Government (New York, 1951)Google Scholar. Christensen writes that only six Latin-American constitutions “specifically state” that the courts have the power of review, and that thirteen are silent on the subject.

¹⁰¹ For references to the writings, see Jaffin, op. cit. (above, n. 39).

¹⁰² Garner, , Political Science and Government, p. 770Google Scholar; Grant, J. A. C., “Due Process for Ex-Dictators; A Study of Judicial Control of Legislation in Guatemala,” American Political Science Review, Vol. 41, pp. 467–469 (1947)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; James, H. G., The Constitutional System of Brazil (Washington, 1923)Google Scholar, Ch. 5.

¹⁰³ See Christensen, p. 472; Grant, , “Due Process for Ex-Dictators,” p. 469Google Scholar; Stokes, W. S., Honduras (Madison, 1950), p. 140Google Scholar.

¹⁰⁴ Art. 76.

¹⁰⁵ Arts. 63, 122. The question of constitutionality can be referred by one-fourth of the members of the legislature or the president prior to the promulgation of a law.

¹⁰⁶ Kennedy, W. P. M. and Schlosberg, H. J., The Law and Custom of the South African Constitution (London, 1935), pp. 98–112Google Scholar; May, H. J., The South African Constitution (2d ed., Capetown, 1949), pp. 7–8Google Scholar.

¹⁰⁷ For discussion of the case, see Griswold, E. N., “The ‘Coloured Vote Case’ in South Africa,” Harvard Law Review, Vol. 65, pp. 1361–1374 (1952)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. A bill altering or repealing an entrenched clause is required by the Union Act (1909) to be passed by both Houses of Parliament in joint session on third reading by two-thirds of the total number of both Houses.

See New York Times, June 4, 1952, p. 19Google Scholar; June 12, 1952, p. 4. Court action against the High Court of Parliament Act has been filed, on grounds that it is invalid, and the contention of invalidity has been sustained in a lower court.

¹⁰⁸ Arts. 151–153. See Second Annual Report of the United Nations Commissioner in Libya, 1951, General Assembly, Official Records, 6th sess., Supp. No. 17 (A/1949), pp. 1–70.

¹⁰⁹ Art. 81.

¹¹⁰ See Pound, Roscoe, “The Chinese Constitution,” New York University Law Quarterly Review, Vol. 22, pp. 194–232 (1947)Google Scholar.

¹¹¹ See Art. 29 of the Ceylon (Constitution) Order in Council of 1946 for provisions relative to religious freedom.

¹¹² Constitution of Burma, Arts. 25, 32–44, 137. Constitution of India, Arts. 13, 32, 36–51, 132–133, 143.

¹¹³ Christian, W., “Burma's Constitution and Supreme Court,” Tulane Law Review, Vol. 26, pp. 47–59 (1951)Google Scholar; Sengupta, Naresh Chandra, “Fundamental Rights,” Indian Law Review, Vol. 4, p. 39 (1950)Google Scholar.

¹¹⁴ Thappar v. The State of Madras, C.W.N. 1950 S.C.R., p. 234; Brij Bhusan v. The State of Delhi, C.W.N. 1950 S.C.R., p. 245.

¹¹⁵ Arts. 54–72, 168–172, 177–179.

¹¹⁶ Art. 81.

¹¹⁷ Oppler, A. C., “The Reform of Japan's Legal and Judicial System,” Washington Law Review, Vol. 24, p. 309 (1949)Google Scholar.

¹¹⁸ Blakemore, T. L., “Post-War Developments in Japanese Law,” Wisconsin Law Review, Vol. 1947, p. 637Google Scholar; Oppler, A. C., “Courts and Law in Transition,” Contemporary Japan, Vol. 21, pp. 19–55 (1952)Google Scholar.