Final answer:
Quasi-judicial powers allow agencies or entities to make judicial-like decisions without being actual courts. Judicial review, established by the Supreme Court in Marbury v. Madison, enables the judiciary to strike down government actions as unconstitutional, despite not being explicitly mentioned in the Constitution. This power is exercised infrequently but is crucial to upholding constitutional governance.
Step-by-step explanation:
Having quasi-judicial powers means an authority or agency has the ability to make decisions and judgments akin to a court of law, though it is not a court itself. Such powers often come into play with administrative agencies or boards like zoning appeals boards, where they can conduct hearings, take sworn testimony, and make decisions that can be reviewed by actual courts.\
These quasi-judicial entities play an important role in interpreting laws and enforcing regulations, effectively bridging the gap between legislative directives and the court's purview.
In the context of judicial review, this term refers to the power of the judiciary (including the Supreme Court and lower courts) to examine and potentially invalidate actions of the executive and legislative branches if deemed unconstitutional.
This was established in the landmark case Marbury v. Madison, which demonstrated judicial review by declaring an act of Congress unconstitutional, despite not being explicitly granted this power in the Constitution. It's an essential mechanism in maintaining the balance of power and ensuring government actions adhere to constitutional principles.
It is important to remember, however, that the exercise of judicial review is relatively rare, with the Supreme Court striking down less than 0.25 percent of all national laws passed. The concept and use of judicial review raise questions about the judiciary's power compared to the other branches of government, with some critics labeling it 'judicial activism' when courts create quasi-legislation from the bench.