<Ul> <Li> </Li> <Li> </Li> <Li> </Li> </Ul> <P> The Federal court system and the judicial authority to interpret the Constitution received little attention in the debates over the drafting and ratification of the Constitution . The power of judicial review, in fact, is nowhere mentioned in it . Over the ensuing years, the question of whether the power of judicial review was even intended by the drafters of the Constitution was quickly frustrated by the lack of evidence bearing on the question either way . Nevertheless, the power of judiciary to overturn laws and executive actions it determines are unlawful or unconstitutional is a well - established precedent . Many of the Founding Fathers accepted the notion of judicial review; in Federalist No. 78, Alexander Hamilton wrote: "A Constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law . It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body . If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute ." </P> <P> The Supreme Court firmly established its power to declare laws unconstitutional in Marbury v. Madison (1803), consummating the American system of checks and balances . In explaining the power of judicial review, Chief Justice John Marshall stated that the authority to interpret the law was the particular province of the courts, part of the duty of the judicial department to say what the law is . His contention was not that the Court had privileged insight into constitutional requirements, but that it was the constitutional duty of the judiciary, as well as the other branches of government, to read and obey the dictates of the Constitution . </P> <P> Since the founding of the republic, there has been a tension between the practice of judicial review and the democratic ideals of egalitarianism, self - government, self - determination and freedom of conscience . At one pole are those who view the Federal Judiciary and especially the Supreme Court as being "the most separated and least checked of all branches of government ." Indeed, federal judges and justices on the Supreme Court are not required to stand for election by virtue of their tenure "during good behavior", and their pay may "not be diminished" while they hold their position (Section 1 of Article Three). Though subject to the process of impeachment, only one Justice has ever been impeached and no Supreme Court Justice has been removed from office . At the other pole are those who view the judiciary as the least dangerous branch, with little ability to resist the exhortations of the other branches of government . The Supreme Court, it is noted, cannot directly enforce its rulings; instead, it relies on respect for the Constitution and for the law for adherence to its judgments . One notable instance of nonacquiescence came in 1832, when the state of Georgia ignored the Supreme Court's decision in Worcester v. Georgia . President Andrew Jackson, who sided with the Georgia courts, is supposed to have remarked, "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!"; however, this alleged quotation has been disputed . Some state governments in the South also resisted the desegregation of public schools after the 1954 judgment Brown v. Board of Education . More recently, many feared that President Nixon would refuse to comply with the Court's order in United States v. Nixon (1974) to surrender the Watergate tapes . Nixon, however, ultimately complied with the Supreme Court's ruling . </P>

What power does the supreme court have in this respect