Question

In most cases involving judicial review, the courts have

Question 2 options:


had their decisions overturned by Congress.


found the governmental actions in question to be unconstitutional.


had their decisions vetoed by the President.


found the governmental actions in question to be constitutional.

Answer 1

In cases involving judicial review, courts have more often found governmental actions to be constitutional than not. The power of judicial review is exercised sparingly, with the Supreme Court striking down a small percentage of laws over its history.

Step-by-step explanation:

In the context of judicial review, when courts assess whether governmental actions are consistent with the Constitution, they have most often found the actions to be constitutional. As part of the system of checks and balances, judicial review is a critical function that allows the judiciary to evaluate the actions of the legislative and executive branches at both the federal and state levels. The courts do not frequently declare government actions unconstitutional; in fact, in its history, the Supreme Court has struck down a relatively small number of national and state laws compared to the total number legislated.

However, when actions are found to be in violation of the Constitution, the judiciary has the power to deem them null and void. This was established in the landmark case Marbury v. Madison and is integral to the court's ability to oversee the other branches of government and safeguard constitutional governance.

Answer 2

The answer is "Option D"

Step-by-step explanation:

The numbering of the choices are missing, which is defined in the attached file please find it.

The courts considered their official actions in dispute acceptable throughout the majority of cases involving the legal challenge because the power of constitutional inspection may determine that local, regional or federal government regulations and actions should be unconstitutional if they contradict that Constitutional. This also gives judges the authority to order unconstitutional action by both the executive or even the legislature.