ABSTRACT
"The constitution", said Marshall, "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". The Articles of Confederation can have afforded little support for Marshall's proposition. They provided that Congress might appoint courts to try piracy and felonies committed on the high seas and establish courts to hear appeals in cases involving capture at sea, and such courts were in fact established. If clear provision for judicial review in one state within a decade after the Philadelphia convention convinces one that the framers intended courts to interpret and enforce the national Constitution, then Marshall's findings and conclusions are established. It is undeniable that the colonial charters were expressed in language that only lawyers would compose and that this language was eminently suitable for interpretation by judges after listening to argument by attorneys trained in law.
