1.  Marbury v. Madison:
a.  held:  it is the judiciary’s duty to review laws to ensure they are C’al
b.  facts:  Marbury tried to mandamus Madison (the SOS) for his appointment; SCt had original jx over mandamus issues per Federal Judiciary act; Marshall says the act is unC’ally in conflict w/ art 3
c.  rzn:
i.  courts always decide questions of conflict of laws
ii.  if there is a conflict => C wins
iii. cts refuse to enforce the law (thereby declaring the law unC’al)
iv. it is the duty of the judiciary to say what the law is
2.  is the law C’al?  the burdens:
a.  rational basis test (law presumed C’al; burden on opponent of law)
b.  elevated rights (speech, press, assembly, religion, discrimination, etc)?  reverse usual presumption & put burden on proponent of law (Carolene Products fn 4)
3.  reviewing state court decisions (must be a state ct. decision based on federal law!)
a.  rule:  SCt can review state jj of federal law, but not state jj of state law
b.  rule:  the federal judiciary is the supreme decider of C’al issues
c.  Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee
i.    issue:  can the SCt review the C’ality of a state ct. decision?
ii.    held:  is a state ct. decision involves federal law, the SCt can decide its C’ality
iii.    rzn:  (1) need uniformity, (2) states don’t have sovereignty over powers they gave to US via C
iv.    not a dual sovereignty problem b/c the SCt. only has appellate power over the case, not the court
d.  aff’d in Cooper v. Aaron;  SCt. decisions are the supreme law of the land
4.  exception:  independent state law grounds adequate to uphold the law regardless of C’al issues Delaware v. Prouse