Which of the following articles from the constitution could be used to effectively argue in favor of judicial review? 1-the judicial power of the united states, shall be vested in one supreme court, and in such inferior courts as the congress may from time to time ordain and establish. 2-the judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office. 3- in all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the supreme court shall have original jurisdiction. 4-the judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this constitution, the laws of the united states, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority.

4. The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority.

Explanation:

Number 4 is the best option that argues in favor of judicial review as it holds that the judicial's power should extend to ALL cases, in law and equity, under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the nation. Many interpret it to mean that the Judicial, then, has the power to review the actions of the Legislative and the Executive in case they do not comply with the law.

For example, if the legislative branch enacts a law that is not consistent with the Constitution (like a law that establishes a religion) the Supreme Court has the power to review it and declare it unconstitutional as it goes against the first amendment; and if the President were to start collecting taxes (which it is not one of their functions), the Supreme Court would also have the power to declare such act unconstitutional.

a is true because it know the force.

ps maybe give us more info?

#mabyeustupid #fatboy

explanation:

i have ni idea