A) judicial activism INCORRECT Judicial activism refers to judges making decisions that are perceived as based on personal or political considerations rather than on existing law. It is often contrasted with judicial restraint, where judges defer to the decisions of the elected branches. While judicial activism can involve the use of judicial review, it is not the principle itself. The question likely refers to the power of the courts to declare laws unconstitutional, which is judicial review, not activism.
B) judicial restraint INCORRECT Judicial restraint is a philosophy that encourages judges to limit the exercise of their own power, deferring to the decisions of the legislative and executive branches unless there is a clear constitutional violation. It is the opposite of judicial activism. While judicial restraint influences how judges apply judicial review, it is not the principle of reviewing laws for constitutionality. The correct answer is judicial review, which is the power to strike down unconstitutional laws.
C) judicial review CORRECT Judicial review is the principle that allows courts to examine laws and executive actions and declare them unconstitutional if they violate the Constitution. This power was established in Marbury v. Madison (1803), where Chief Justice John Marshall asserted the Supreme Court's authority to interpret the Constitution. Judicial review is a fundamental check on the other branches of government, ensuring that they act within their constitutional limits. It is a cornerstone of American constitutional law and is essential for protecting individual rights and maintaining the rule of law.
D) judicial supremacy INCORRECT Judicial supremacy is the idea that the Supreme Court is the final authority on constitutional interpretation, and its decisions are binding on all other branches of government. While judicial review is a key component of judicial supremacy, the two concepts are distinct. Judicial supremacy refers to the hierarchical position of the Court, whereas judicial review is the specific power to declare laws unconstitutional. The question asks for the principle reflected in the passage, which is the power of review, not the broader doctrine of supremacy.
