马尔贝里诉麦迪森案和法国民法典两者几乎是同时代出现的:前者为1803年;后者为1804年。而且在各自的国家(即美国和法国),两者都作为法律制度的重要组成部分体现。但迄今没有相互影响。现在在美国(除路易斯安娜州以外);并没有广泛地编篡法典;而在法国,则没有法院对立法的合宪性进行监督。而后一点,在许多美国法律家看来是一件奇异的事情。然而如果人们采取一种效用的观点考察,其差异就可能没有人们可能认为的那么大。在法国,的确有一种根深蒂固的传统,反对依美国的模式由法院对立法的合宪性进行一 Almost contemporaneously, both Malberry v. Madison and the French Civil Code appeared: the former was 1803; the latter 1804. And in their respective countries (the United States and France), both are important components of the legal system. But so far no interaction. Now in the United States (except Louisiana); the Code is not codified extensively; in France no court is monitoring the constitutionality of the legislation. And then, it seems a bizarre thing to many U.S. lawyers. However, if one takes a useful perspective, the difference may not be as large as one might think. There is indeed a deep-rooted tradition in France that opposes the constitutionalization of legislation by courts in the light of the American model