peer1  In doing research for this paper I came across the name Colon-Raos in a lot of papers. I am glad I can quote him myself.  He uses a first model “strong judicial review” (2014) to what we have in the U. S. Supreme Court. “The only way legislators can formally override a judicial invalidation of a law is through constitution-amending legislation ……” (Colon-Raos 2014 para 1). This is where the only way we can amend a law of the U.S. Constitution is having a two-thirds vote. This is the type of judicial review that is held in most of the countries of the North and South America’s and Europe.             The second model “weak judicial review” (2014) allows legislative majorities final word when considering the validity of laws. “Judges have the duty of interpreting legislation in a rights-consistent way, if this is possible, they are sometimes allowed to make non-binding declarations of inconsistency or to initially ‘strike down’ the law in question” (Colon-Raos 2014 para 1). It is this model that is currently present throughout some commonwealth jurisdictions, “but it is also exemplified in some nineteenth and early twentieth-century Latin American constitutions” (Colon-Raos 2014 para 1).                       Some look at the way we amend our Constitution as “strong judicial review and parliamentary supremacy” (2014) meaning giving power to those to have the final word, or final vote, on the way we amend our Constitution.  “...Increasingly influential forms of judicial review that extends judges’ strike-down powers to constitution-amending legislation … “(Colon-Raos 2014 para 2). India and Belize allows the judges to ‘strike down’ legislation “that is inconsistent with a particular constitutional provision, but also constitutional amendments incompatible with the principles on which the constitution rests “(Colon-Raos 2014 para 2).             I am glad that we require a two-thirds vote before the U.S. Constitution can be changed. If you can get two-third of people to agree together, then it must be right. COLÓN-RÃOS, J.,I. (2014). A new typology of judicial review of legislation. Global Constitutionalism, 3 (2), 143-169. doi:http://dx.doi.org.southuniversity.libproxy.edmc.edu/10.1017/S20453817140000 peer2 Judicial review is simply an avenue that courts use to determine which given law or official action is compatible with the constitution that can be accepted. Different countries have different processes of judicial review and I am going to discuss the United State and the United Kingdom. Constitutions can be interpreted in various ways, but the doctrine of judicial review stays at the root of the natural law theories. Judicial review must have a written constitution with supremacy over other laws. It must also be rigid. The first case of the Supreme Court of United States was 1796, Hilton vs. U.S.  The first judicial review in 1803, Marbury vs. Madison became a law that struck down as unconstitutional but the carriage tax w.

1. peer1
In doing research for this paper I came across the name Colon-
Raos in a lot of papers. I am glad I can quote him myself. He
uses a first model “strong judicial review” (2014) to what we
have in the U. S. Supreme Court. “The only way legislators can
formally override a judicial invalidation of a law is through
constitution-amending legislation ……” (Colon-Raos 2014 para
1). This is where the only way we can amend a law of the U.S.
Constitution is having a two-thirds vote. This is the type of
judicial review that is held in most of the countries of the North
and South America’s and Europe.
The second model “weak judicial review” (2014) allows
legislative majorities final word when considering the validity
of laws. “Judges have the duty of interpreting legislation in a
rights-consistent way, if this is possible, they are sometimes
allowed to make non-binding declarations of inconsistency or to
initially ‘strike down’ the law in question” (Colon-Raos 2014
para 1). It is this model that is currently present throughout
some commonwealth jurisdictions, “but it is also exemplified in
some nineteenth and early twentieth-century Latin American
constitutions” (Colon-Raos 2014 para 1).
Some look at the way we amend our Constitution as
“strong judicial review and parliamentary supremacy” (2014)
meaning giving power to those to have the final word, or final
vote, on the way we amend our Constitution. “...Increasingly
influential forms of judicial review that extends judges’ strike-
down powers to constitution-amending legislation … “(Colon-
Raos 2014 para 2). India and Belize allows the judges to ‘strike
down’ legislation “that is inconsistent with a particular
constitutional provision, but also constitutional amendments
incompatible with the principles on which the constitution rests
“(Colon-Raos 2014 para 2).
I am glad that we require a two-thirds vote before the

2. U.S. Constitution can be changed. If you can get two-third of
people to agree together, then it must be right.
COLÓN-RÃOS, J.,I. (2014). A new typology of judicial review
of legislation.
Global Constitutionalism,
3
(2), 143-169.
doi:http://dx.doi.org.southuniversity.libproxy.edmc.edu/10.1017
/S20453817140000
peer2
Judicial review is simply an avenue that courts use to determine
which given law or official action is compatible with the
constitution that can be accepted. Different countries have
different processes of judicial review and I am going to discuss
the United State and the United Kingdom. Constitutions can be
interpreted in various ways, but the doctrine of judicial review
stays at the root of the natural law theories.
Judicial review must have a written constitution with supremacy
over other laws. It must also be rigid. The first case of the
Supreme Court of United States was 1796, Hilton vs. U.S. The
first judicial review in 1803, Marbury vs. Madison became a
law that struck down as unconstitutional but the carriage tax
was constitutional per the Supreme Court’s decision. The U.S.
Supreme Court has deemed 176 acts of the U.S. Congress
unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has original jurisdiction
and appellate jurisdiction as well. Judicial officers are under
oath to support this as a supremacy clause. James Madison said
“a law violating the constitution would be considered null and
void by the judges. In the same token, George Mason said that
the federal judges could declare an unconstitutional law void.
The power of federal courts reviewing the constitutionality of

3. law, out of fifteen delegates from nine states only two delegates
supported the idea of federal courts having the power of judicial
review. The framers noted that court power about the
unconstitutionality of laws would help to protect against
excessive use of legislative power.
The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom matters
under English, Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish laws. This is
highest appellate court and the court of last resort in the United
Kingdom. When it comes to jurisdiction during disputes the
Supreme Court handles that. Twelve judges were appointed to
judicial business and its judicial review powers are limited
when compared with the powers of the Supreme Court of the
United States. Primary legislation by parliament can’t be
overturned, only secondary legislation can, for example; the
Human Rights Act of 1998.
General public importance about cases that raise points of law
is the Supreme Court priority. Devolution are the Supreme
Courts job to decide regarding legal proceedings. Only five or
less judges typically handle cases, not all twelve of them.
According to Lord Diplock, administrative actions which are
subject to judicial review will be called an illegality,
irrationality or impropriety
He went further to explain that the law must be carefully
understood so no justifiable question will arise. Again he also
said that any decision made must be of acceptable standards and
basic principles of the natural law and must be observed. They
use judicial review to preserve the Human Right Act.
United States have a stronger judicial system as to compare to
other countries because is governed by the Supreme Court that
defines law. This system allows the accused to defend
themselves, innocent until proven guilty. Unlike some countries
where your faith lies on the hand of a judge deciding whether
you are guilty or innocent without the jury.
Judicial deals with law presented to them and other branches of

4. government can constrain them and overrule them. This is a
weakness in judiciary. However they can choose cases they
want which sever as strength on their part.
There is a clear center of authority in the United Kingdom.
Rights of citizens are protected by the rule of law. Government
effectively implements their policy program and account to
parliament and electorate. They have a flexible democratic rule
with history and tradition. However, there is elective
dictatorship with uncertainly. Rights of citizens are weak and
not effectively safeguarded, monarch and House of Lords are
typical example. Also Constitution change does not require
special procedure like here in the United State.
Defending the Constitution. (2014, August 1). Retrieved March
03, 2017, from http://adriansmith.house.gov/defending-
constitution
Peped Follow. (2015, August 21). Strengths and weaknesses of
the UK Constitution. Retrieved
March 03, 2017, from
https://www.slideshare.net/PhilosophicalInvestigations/strength
s-and-weaknesses-of-the-uk-constitution