ABSTRACT
Judicial review occurs whenever a court considers the compatibility of a legislative or executive action with the provisions of a constitution. Judicial review is an essential feature of US constitutional government, under which fundamental principles limit the scope of public authorities. Fundamental to the practice of limited government, judicial review is not universally regarded as consistent with legislative authority and the basic theory of representative democracy. In 1788, immediately before ratification of the Constitution, Judge Robert Yates argued that the practice of judicial review was antidemocratic. Judicial review was inconsistent with the tenets of representative democracy. Scholarly examinations of judicial review inevitably generate questions regarding the proper scope of judicial authority vis-a-vis the other branches of government in the US constitutional system. Most judicial scholars accept the practice of judicial review as a legitimate extension of the power conferred on the Supreme Court by Article III of the Constitution.
