ABSTRACT
Scholars have spent much time counting the number of framers who favored judicial review. Many studies have been infused with a crusading spirit, designed either to prove the historical legitimacy of judicial review or to chop away at its foundations. The proposition that British courts could void an act of Parliament appeared in an opinion by Chief Justice Edward Coke. Although Coke's opinion provided inadequate support for judicial review, it was accepted as good law and precedent for those in America who wanted to break with England. Judicial review by the federal judiciary over the states was thus well established. The application of judicial review against the coequal branches of Congress and the president was a bolder claim to assert. If the justices exercised judicial review by striking down the repeal statute, they knew it would greatly intensify congressional efforts to impeach and remove Federalist judges.
