<P> It has been argued that the judiciary is not the only branch of government that may interpret the meaning of the Constitution . Article VI requires federal and state officeholders to be bound "by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution ." It has been argued that such officials may follow their own interpretations of the Constitution, at least until those interpretations have been tested in court . </P> <P> Some have argued that judicial review is unconstitutional based on two arguments . First, the power of judicial review is not expressly delegated to the courts in the Constitution . The Tenth Amendment reserves to the states (or to the people) those powers not delegated to the federal government . The second argument is that the states alone have the power to ratify changes to the "supreme law" (the U.S. Constitution), and that the states should play some role in interpreting its meaning . Under this theory, allowing only federal courts to definitively conduct judicial review of federal law allows the national government to interpret its own restrictions as it sees fit, with no meaningful input from the ratifying power . </P> <P> In the United States, unconstitutionality is the only ground for a federal court to strike down a federal statute . Justice Washington, speaking for the Marshall Court, put it this way in an 1829 case: </P> <Table> <Tr> <Td> "</Td> <Td> We intend to decide no more than that the statute objected to in this case is not repugnant to the Constitution of the United States, and that unless it be so, this Court has no authority, under the 25th section of the judiciary act, to re-examine and to reverse the judgement of the supreme court of Pennsylvania in the present case . </Td> <Td>" </Td> </Tr> </Table>

Why do you suppose judicial review developed in the united states