诚然可以推断,在美国宪法中并没有明确提到司法审查的问题。为该项权力提供证据的唯一“明确措词”即就职宣誓,这是联邦政府其他成员所宣读的同一誓词。因此,要为司法审查提供合法理由,就需要比审查基本文献之措词做更多的探讨。的确,马伯里诉麦迪逊一案(1803年)中的合法理由并不仅仅依靠对那些措词的解释,而同样是依靠对整个文献的更加模糊不清的含义所做的解释。 It can be inferred that the issue of judicial review is not explicitly mentioned in the U.S. constitution. The only “clear wording” that provides evidence of the power is the oath of office, the same oath read by the rest of the federal government. Therefore, to provide legal justification for judicial review, more discussion is needed than to examine the wording of basic documents. Indeed, the legal justification in the case of Marbury v. Madison (1803) did not depend solely on the interpretation of those terms, but on the more vague interpretations of the entire document.