Six constitutional arguments in judicial review

Judicial Review in the United States is based on a premise that the actions of the legislative and the executive branches should be subject to review by the judiciary. Supreme Court is the main actor in conducting such reviews. The Court has the power to invalidate the mandate of either the legislative or the executive if the Court finds them incompatible with the constitutional law. The judicial review is part of the democratic principle, separating powers in the government, and making both the executive and the legislative branches accountable before the supreme law. In the United States today, the judicial review may be used through six forms of constitutional arguments or constructions: historical, textual, structural, doctrinal, ethical, and prudential. The historical argument usually refers to the original intent or the understanding of the constitutional argument, often referring to the intentions of those who codified the laws. The textual argument is closely related to the doctrine of original intent and deals with the question of whether any party is bound by the language of the Constitution as written and whether specific texts of the Constitution are applicable in the specific case reviewed. In structural argument, structural rules from the relationships mandated by the Constitution are sought. The application of precedents bases doctrinal arguments, while the costs and benefits of a particular rule are sought in prudential arguments. Moral commitments of the Americans ethos, as reflected in the Constitution, form the basis of ethical arguments.