Chief Justice John Marshall in Marbury v. Madison
Supreme Court
Decision of the Supreme Court in Marbury v. Madisondelivered by Chief Justice John Marshall"So, if a law be in opposition to the Constitution, if both the law and the Constitution apply to a particular case, … the Court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty.…The particular phraseology [wording] of the Constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written Constitutions, that a law repugnant to the Constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument."
If a law violates the US Constitution, it is said to be unconstitutional.
The court has to take into consideration whether a law is considered constitutional or unconstitutional depending on whether a law is upheld by the constitution or not. The constitution has to support a law for it not to be void.
Because the supreme court is given the power to protect ,safeguard,and uphold the constitution and empower to declare a law null and void if it is found to be in consistant with the constitution.Therefore supreme court is said to be the guardian of indian constitution.
Its by the Supreme Court.
Because the supreme court is given the power to protect ,safeguard,and uphold the constitution and empower to declare a law null and void if it is found to be in consistant with the constitution.Therefore supreme court is said to be the guardian of indian constitution.
The Kentucky Resolution said that each state has the right and responsibility to declare a federal law unconstitutional and void. Additionally, when this is so, nullification of the law by the state is the proper remedy.
Because the supreme court is given the power to protect ,safeguard,and uphold the constitution and empower to declare a law null and void if it is found to be in consistant with the constitution.Therefore supreme court is said to be the guardian of indian constitution.
Yes. Article VI of the Constitution applies, and is relevant, as long as the potential exists for any entity -- particularly the states -- to pass any law repugnant to the US Constitution. In other words, Article VI can be applied prophylactically.
section2(g) provides, "an agreement not enforceable by law is said to be void" the void agreement does not create legal relations between parties and is void ab-initio(from the beginning).