ABSTRACT
The skeptic who depends on Marshall's opinion for legitimation of the power of judicial review comes out of the reading with doubt that a power to nullify laws was conferred on any court. Statements about specific intent to authorize judicial review may be inconclusive, but there is no conflict in the testimony about intent to put the judiciary on a level of authority equal to that of the Executive and the legislature. The effect of the reasoning thus far is to establish that the Constitution is law in the same sense that national statutes and national treaties are law and that all three expressions of national law are superior to any expressions of state law. Some expressly stated the judges would refuse to enforce state and national statutes that conflicted with it. Other members of the convention said things which indicated that they took for granted a power of judicial review.
