10 POINTS IF YOU DO NOT HAVE AN ANSWER DO NOT ANSWER THE QUESTION
brainliest goes to the correct dude

The power of judicial review was not established in the Constitution but rather through an action of the Supreme Court. Describe the event that originated judicial review. Use evidence to support your answer.

Judicial review is the power of the courts to declare that acts of the other branches of government are unconstitutional, and thus unenforceable. For example if Congress were to pass a law banning newspapers from printing information about certain political matters, courts would have the authority to rule that this law violates the First Amendment, and is therefore unconstitutional. State courts also have the power to strike down their own state’s laws based on the state or federal constitutions.

Today, we take judicial review for granted. In fact, it is one of the main characteristics of government in the United States. On an almost daily basis, court decisions come down from around the country striking down state and federal rules as being unconstitutional. Some of the topics of these laws in recent times include same sex marriage bans, voter identification laws, gun restrictions, government surveillance programs and restrictions on abortion.

Other countries have also gotten in on the concept of judicial review. A Romanian court recently ruled that a law granting immunity to lawmakers and banning certain types of speech against public officials was unconstitutional. Greek courts have ruled that certain wage cuts for public employees are unconstitutional. The legal system of the European Union specifically gives the Court of Justice of the European Union the power of judicial review. The power of judicial review is also afforded to the courts of Canada, Japan, India and other countries. Clearly, the world trend is in favor of giving courts the power to review the acts of the other branches of government.

However, it was not always so. In fact, the idea that the courts have the power to strike down laws duly passed by the legislature is not much older than is the United States. In the civil law system, judges are seen as those who apply the law, with no power to create (or destroy) legal principles. In the (British) common law system, on which American law is based, judges are seen as sources of law, capable of creating new legal principles, and also capable of rejecting legal principles that are no longer valid. However, as Britain has no Constitution, the principle that a court could strike down a law as being unconstitutional was not relevant in Britain. Moreover, even to this day, Britain has an attachment to the idea of legislative supremacy. Therefore, judges in the United Kingdom do not have the power to strike down legislation.

Explanation:

nationalparalegal.edu /JudicialReview.aspx

uncle sam would be tossing and turning in his grave : *)

the correct answer is: (1) affected by gerrymandering; (2) not affected by gerrymandering.

gerrymandering is known as a practice that intends to establish a some kind of political advantage for a particular party or group. to do this district boundaries are manipulated. the new resulting district is named a gerrymandering.

in other words, what gerrymandering does is to draw the boundaries of electoral districts trying to benefit the party who is doing it. sometimes, the party controlling the legislature will redraw it so they can maximize the number of districts they are likely to control.