The doctrine of judicial review is as much a principle of the Constitution as the principle of federalism or the doctrine of separation of powers and checks and balances. It is a far more definite power than the powers of Congress or those of the President. It should be remembered that the Constitution nowhere mentions federalism, separation of powers, checks and balances, national supremacy or concurrent powers, taxation for only a public purpose, business affected with a public interest is subject to regulation, contracts involving governmental powers are null and void, neither the national government nor the states can tax the instrumentalities of the other, and the doctrine of implied powers, yet no one can doubt that these are principles of the Constitution. The fact that they are not specifically mentioned is no argument at all that they are not in the Constitution. How have they been discovered? By judicial interpretation. What valid reason is there for the unequivocal and complete acceptance of these principles derived from the language of the Constitution and the rejection of the principle of judicial review which is even more definitely a fundamental principle of the Constitution. Indeed without which the other principles of the Constitution could not have been derived.
C. P. Patterson,
State Bar Journal,
The Development and Evaluation of Judicial Review [Part 1],
13 Wash. L. Rev. & St. B.J.
Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.uw.edu/wlr/vol13/iss1/8