Final answer:
The question seeks to identify a nation without separation of powers or judicial review. Most modern democracies have these systems to divide government authority and provide checks and balances, with judicial review enabling courts to assess constitutionality. However, there are nations where these mechanics are not present, which could affect minority rights protection and power distribution.
Step-by-step explanation:
The question refers to a nation where there is no separation of powers nor judicial review. Separation of powers is a doctrine that divides the governance of a state into different branches, typically executive, legislative, and judicial, to prevent one group from gaining too much power and to provide a system of checks and balances.
Judicial review, on the other hand, allows the judiciary to interpret the constitution and nullify any law or government action that is deemed unconstitutional. In the context of your question, it is essential to note that most modern democracies have some form of separation of powers and the judicial branch often has the power of judicial review.
However, there are some nations where these concepts are not applied, or are applied differently, potentially lacking the same checks and balances seen in countries like the United States.
The constitutional doctrine of judicial review in the United States was established in the Marbury vs. Madison case, as noted in your reference material, where the Supreme Court gave itself and lower courts the authority to review federal and state laws' constitutionality.
This power is not explicitly listed in the U.S. Constitution but has been inferred and solidified through court practice and historical precedent. Overall, a nation without separation of powers and judicial review might result in a scenario where the governance is more streamlined but potentially at the cost of decreased protection for minority rights and less balance against the concentration of power.