TO PLAIN TO BE CONTESTED, THAT THE CONSTITUTION CONTROLS ANY LEGISLATIVE
ACT REPUGNANT TO IT; OR, THAT THE LEGISLATURE MAY ALTER THE CONSTITUTION
.BY AN ORDINARY ACT
BETWEEN THESE ALTERNATIVES THERE IS NO MIDDLE GROUND. THE CONSTITUTION
IS EITHER A SUPERIOR, PARAMOUNT LAW, UNCHANGEABLE BY ORDINARY MEANS, OR
,IT IS ON A LEVEL WITH ORDINARY LEGISLATIVE ACTS, AND, LIKE OTHER ACTS
."IS ALTERABLE WHEN THE LEGISLATURE SHALL PLEASE TO ALTER IT
--- סוף עמוד 416 ---
הנה כי כן, החוקה נועדה להגביל את המחוקק. מתן משמעות להגבלה זו אפשרית רק אם חוק רגיל לא יוכל להתגבר על הוראות החוק. אין דרך ביניים - או שהחוקה עליונה ולא ניתן לשנותה או לפגוע בה באמצעים רגילים, או שהינה כחוק רגיל, אשר המחוקק יכול לשנותה כאוות נפשו. והשופט מרשל מוסיף, שם:
,IF AN ACT OF THE LEGISLATURE, REPUGNANT TO THE CONSTITUTION, IS VOID"
DOES IT, NOTWITHSTANDING ITS INVALIDITY, BIND THE COURTS, AND OBLIGE
THEM TO GIVE IT EFFECT? OR, IN OTHER WORDS, THOUGH IT BE NOT LAW, DOES
...?IT CONSTITUTE A RULE AS OPERATIVE AS IF IT WAS A LAW
IT IS EMPHATICALLY THE PROVINCE AND DUTY OF THE JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT TO
SAY WHAT THE LAW IS. THOSE WHO APPLY THE RULE TO PARTICULAR CASES, MUST
OF NECESSITY EXPOUND AND INTERPRET THAT RULE. IF TWO LAWS CONFLICT WITH
EACH OTHER, THE COURTS MUST DECIDE ON THE OPERATION OF EACH. SO IF A LAW
BE IN OPPOSITION TO THE CONSTITUTION; IF BOTH THE LAW AND THE
CONSTITUTION APPLY TO A PARTICULAR CASE, SO THAT THE COURT MUST EITHER
;DECIDE THAT CASE CONFORMABLY TO THE LAW, DISREGARDING THE CONSTITUTION
OR CONFORMABLY TO THE CONSTITUTION, DISREGARDING THE LAW; THE COURT MUST
DETERMIN WHICH OF THESE CONFLICTING RULES GOVERNS THE CASE. THIS IS OF
THE VERY 260 ESSENCE OF JUDICIAL DUTY. IF, THEN, THE COURTS ARE TO
REGARD THE CONSTITUTION, AND THE CONSTITUTION IS SUPERIOR TO ANY
ORDINARY ACT OF THE LEGISLATURE, THE CONSTITUTION, AND NOT SUCH ORDINARY
."ACT, MUST GOVERN THE CASE TO WHICH THEY BOTH APPLY
מאז אותה פרשה, אין איש מפקפק עוד בארצות-הברית כי חוק הנוגד את החוקה בטל, וכי זהו תפקידו של בית המשפט - תוך פרשנות החוקה והחוק - לקבוע קיומה של