. See Charles G. Haines, The American Doctrine of Judicial Supremacy
22–25 (Berkeley, 1932); Henry Rottschaefer, Handbook of American Constitutional Law
32–36 (St. Paul, Minn., 1939); Andrew C. McLaughlin, A Constitutional History of the United States
26–27 (N.Y., 1935); Corwin, “Higher Law,” 42
Harv. L. Rev.
375, 379, 408–409. Corwin seems to read too much into Adams' report of Otis' words
when he says, “Then and there American constitutional law was born, for Otis' contention
goes far beyond Coke's: an ordinary court may traverse the specifically enacted will
of Parliament, and its condemnation is final.” Id.
at 398. The history of judicial review in the colonies suggests many roots, including
the activities of the colonial courts and the judicial functions of the Privy Council.
See Haines, Judicial Supremacy
44–66; Smith, Appeals to the Privy Council
522–653. For references to the idea in Massachusetts, see Quincy, Reports (Appendix)
527–528 note; note 42
above; note 48
spoke of “telling the jury the nullity of acts of Parliament,” but this was after
the British had left Boston.
to William Cushing, 9 June 1776, 9 JA, Works