Final answer:
A defendant can attack a statute as unconstitutional either because the law itself is considered unconstitutional across all applications (on its face) or because it is unconstitutional in the specific way it has been applied to their case (as applied). Judicial review is the process by which courts assess these challenges.
Step-by-step explanation:
A defendant can challenge a statute as unconstitutional if it is perceived as unconstitutional in two key ways: on its face, which means that the law in question is inherently unconstitutional in all of its applications, or as applied to the defendant, implying that the law is specifically unconstitutional in the defendant's particular situation. Therefore, the correct answer is c) Both on its face and as applied to the defendant.
When a law is challenged on its face, it is often because the law itself violates a constitutional principle, no matter how it is applied. An example is a law that infringes upon the protected freedoms under the First Amendment. When a law is challenged as applied, the defendant argues that the statute, while perhaps constitutional for others, has been applied to them in an unconstitutional manner. Judicial review is the process through which courts evaluate these claims and determine the constitutionality of statutes.
For statutes that seem to target individuals or groups without proper judicial proceedings, such as bills of attainder, they would generally be challenged as unconstitutional on their face due to the protections offered by the Constitution against such legislative actions.