<P> So, if a law be in opposition to the Constitution, if both the law and the Constitution apply to a particular case, so that the Court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the Constitution, or conformably to the Constitution, disregarding the law, the Court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case . This is of the very essence of judicial duty . </P> <P> If, then, the Courts are to regard the Constitution, and the Constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the Legislature, the Constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply...</P> <P> Marshall stated that the courts are authorized by the provisions of the Constitution itself to "look into" the Constitution, that is, to interpret and apply it, and that they have the duty to refuse to enforce any laws that are contrary to the Constitution . Specifically, Article III provides that the federal judicial power "is extended to all cases arising under the Constitution ." Article VI requires judges to take an oath "to support this Constitution ." Article VI also states that only laws "made in pursuance of the Constitution" are the law of the land . Marshall concluded: "Thus, the particular phraseology 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 ." </P> <P> Marbury long has been regarded as the seminal case with respect to the doctrine of judicial review . Some scholars have suggested that Marshall's opinion in Marbury essentially created judicial review . In his book The Least Dangerous Branch, Professor Alexander Bickel wrote: </P>

How does judicial review affect the us government