the u.s. supreme court can decide whether a law is unconstitutional the supreme court congress the states the president.
the u.s. supreme court can decide whether a law is unconstitutional the supreme court congress the states the president.
who can decide whether a law is unconstitutional the supreme court congress the states the president?
the u.s. supreme court
in 1813, the supreme court reversed a decision of the virginia court of appeals, basing its decision on the terms of a federal treaty. the virginia court of appeals refused to accept the supreme court's decision, stating that under the constitution, the supreme court did not have authority over state courts. the virginia court held that as a matter of state sovereignty, its decisions were final and could not be appealed to the u.s. supreme court. the virginia court found unconstitutional the federal statute providing for supreme court review of state court judgments. this decision would have allowed each state's courts to decide for themselves whether federal actions were unconstitutional, effectively giving state courts the right to nullify federal law. in "martin v. hunter's lessee", 14 u.s. (1 wheat.) 304 (1816), the supreme court rejected this view. the supreme court held that article iii of the constitution gives the federal courts jurisdiction in all cases arising under the constitution or federal law, and gives the supreme court final authority in such cases. the supreme court stated that the people, by providing in the constitution that the supreme court has final authority in such cases, had chosen to limit the sovereignty of the states. the supreme court therefore found that the federal courts, not the states, have the final power to interpret the constitution.
nullification (u.s. constitution)
supreme court shall inquire and decide regarding "doubts" and "disputes" arising out of or in connection with the election of a president per of the constitution. subject to article 71 (3), parliament made applicable rules/procedure to petition the supreme court for resolving the "disputes" only that arise during the election process of the president but not the "doubts" that arise from his unconstitutional actions/deeds or changing indian citizenship during the tenure of president which may violate the requisite election qualifications. subject to the provisions of prevention of insults to national honour act, 1971, supreme court can remove the president for ceasing to possess the eligible qualifications to be lok sabha member under sections 7 & 8(k) of this act when the acts/ deeds (i.e. for giving assent to unconstitutional bills passed by the parliament or state legislatives, permitting the gazette notification of the unconstitutional advises {including promulgation of ordinances under article 123 or imposing president rules in a state under article 356} rendered by the union cabinet / prime minister, etc.) of the president are proclaimed by the courts as unconstitutional, mala fide, ultra vires, void, etc. also it is the duty of the supreme court to clarify any doubt in connection with the election of president such as speedy trail of the pending cases against an elected president before the elevation to president. the scope of the trail would be limited only to decide whether the incumbent president is eligible to continue in his post but not to prosecute the president under criminal charges with arrest and imprisonment or to claim relief in a civil case to comply with the provisions per of the constitution.
representation of the people act, 1951