Chief Justice, John Marshall, believed that the Constitution was supreme law and .
that only the Judicial Branch of government could interpret laws and the Constitution. If .
Congress passed laws that went against the Constitution, then they became tyrannical and .
the Constitution becomes void. But the question is, can and should the government use .
laws passed by Congress?.
The Judicial Branch of government has the dilemma of deciding what to do when .
a law is in opposition to the Constitution. Do they conform to the law or conform to the .
Constitution? Their power deals with the extent of the Constitution and they must uphold .
it because the Constitution comes before the law. In each case, however, the courts are .
forced to resolve whether or not to follow the laws or the Constitution. It is the .
Constitution by which they take the oath of office.
The Constitution is supreme law in that it is very difficult to add to or change. .
Two-thirds of both Houses are required along with three-fourths of the states. This is due .
to the system of checks and balances, which limits the powers of the legislation. Laws .
that conflict with the Constitution are void and courts should follow that rule of thumb, .
but in some circumstances the laws apply to certain cases. So, are the courts to do? .
Marshall's view was that there are situations where the Constitution doesn't apply .
and ordinary laws address the issue specifically. But he also says that any law .
discrediting the Constitution is void. The government will need to address this issue in .
depth before it becomes too late. If the Constitution was ordinary law, then we could just .
amend it any time we pleased. So a separation of state laws and the Constitution needs to be established.