Comment la doctrine du contrôle judiciaire américain s'est-elle distinguée des systèmes de révision judiciaire antérieurs, tels que le "Conseil de révision" de l'État de New York, et quels facteurs ont influencé son évolution vers un modèle plus robuste de pouvoir judiciaire ?
Scope and theory

Courts established by the Constitution can regulate government under the Constitution, the supreme law of the land. First, they have jurisdiction over actions by an officer of government and state law. Second, federal courts may rule on whether coordinate branches of national government conform to the Constitution. Until the twentieth century, the Supreme Court of the United States may have been the only high tribunal in the world to use a court for constitutional interpretation of fundamental law, others generally depending on their national legislature.

The basic theory of American judicial review is summarized by constitutional legal scholars and historians as follows: the written Constitution is fundamental law within the states. It can change only by extraordinary legislative process of national proposal, then state ratification. The powers of all departments are limited to enumerated grants found in the Constitution. Courts are expected (a) to enforce provisions of the Constitution as the supreme law of the land, and (b) to refuse to enforce anything in conflict with it.

As to judicial review and the Congress, the first proposals by Madison (Virginia) and Wilson (Pennsylvania) called for a supreme court veto over national legislation. In this it resembled the system in New York, where the Constitution of 1777 called for a " Council of Revision " by the governor and justices of the state supreme court. The council would review and veto any passed legislation; violating the spirit of the Constitution before it went into effect. The nationalist's proposal in convention was defeated three times and replaced by a presidential veto with congressional over-ride. Judicial review relies on the jurisdictional authority in Article III, and the Supremacy Clause.

The justification for judicial review is to be explicitly found in the open ratifications held in the states and reported in their newspapers. John Marshall in Virginia, James Wilson in Pennsylvania and Oliver Ellsworth of Connecticut all argued for Supreme Court judicial review of acts of state legislature. In Federalist No. 78, Alexander Hamilton advocated the doctrine of a written document held as a superior enactment of the people. "A limited constitution can be preserved in practice no other way" than through courts which can declare void any legislation contrary to the Constitution. The preservation of the people's authority over legislatures rests "particularly with judges."

The Supreme Court was initially made up of jurists who had been intimately connected with the framing of the Constitution and the establishment of its government as law. John Jay (New York), a co-author of The Federalist Papers, served as chief justice for the first six years. The second chief justice, John Rutledge (South Carolina), was appointed by Washington in 1795 as a recess appointment, but was not confirmed by the Senate. Resigning later that year, he was succeeded in 1796 by the third chief justice, Oliver Ellsworth (Connecticut). Both Rutledge and Ellsworth were delegates to the Constitutional Convention. John Marshall (Virginia), the fourth chief justice, had served in the Virginia Ratification Convention in 1788. His 34 years of service on the Court would see some of the most important rulings to help establish the nation the Constitution had begun. Other early members of the Supreme Court who had been delegates to the Constitutional Convention included James Wilson (Pennsylvania) for ten years, and John Blair Jr. (Virginia) for five years.
États-Unis

La possibilité d'un procès devant jury varie selon les juridictions américaines. Le système juridique américain s'étant séparé de celui de l'Angleterre à l'époque de la Révolution américaine, les types de procédures qui font appel à un jury dépendent de savoir si de telles affaires étaient jugées par un jury en vertu du droit commun anglais à cette époque, plutôt que des méthodes utilisées dans les tribunaux anglais aujourd'hui. Par exemple, à l'époque, les « cours de droit » anglais jugeaient les affaires de tort ou de droit privé visant à obtenir des dommages-intérêts avec un jury, mais les « cours d'équité » qui jugeaient les affaires civiles visant à obtenir une injonction ou une autre forme de réparation non monétaire n'utilisaient pas de jury. Par conséquent, cette pratique se poursuit dans le droit civil américain, mais dans le droit anglais moderne, seuls les procès pénaux et certaines enquêtes sont susceptibles d'être jugés par un jury.
### Query ###
Comment la doctrine du contrôle judiciaire américain s'est-elle distinguée des systèmes de révision judiciaire antérieurs, tels que le "Conseil de révision" de l'État de New York, et quels facteurs ont influencé son évolution vers un modèle plus robuste de pouvoir judiciaire ?

### Main Text ###
Scope and theory

Courts established by the Constitution can regulate government under the Constitution, the supreme law of the land. First, they have jurisdiction over actions by an officer of government and state law. Second, federal courts may rule on whether coordinate branches of national government conform to the Constitution. Until the twentieth century, the Supreme Court of the United States may have been the only high tribunal in the world to use a court for constitutional interpretation of fundamental law, others generally depending on their national legislature.

The basic theory of American judicial review is summarized by constitutional legal scholars and historians as follows: the written Constitution is fundamental law within the states. It can change only by extraordinary legislative process of national proposal, then state ratification. The powers of all departments are limited to enumerated grants found in the Constitution. Courts are expected (a) to enforce provisions of the Constitution as the supreme law of the land, and (b) to refuse to enforce anything in conflict with it.

As to judicial review and the Congress, the first proposals by Madison (Virginia) and Wilson (Pennsylvania) called for a supreme court veto over national legislation. In this it resembled the system in New York, where the Constitution of 1777 called for a " Council of Revision " by the governor and justices of the state supreme court. The council would review and veto any passed legislation; violating the spirit of the Constitution before it went into effect. The nationalist's proposal in convention was defeated three times and replaced by a presidential veto with congressional over-ride. Judicial review relies on the jurisdictional authority in Article III, and the Supremacy Clause.

The justification for judicial review is to be explicitly found in the open ratifications held in the states and reported in their newspapers. John Marshall in Virginia, James Wilson in Pennsylvania and Oliver Ellsworth of Connecticut all argued for Supreme Court judicial review of acts of state legislature. In Federalist No. 78, Alexander Hamilton advocated the doctrine of a written document held as a superior enactment of the people. "A limited constitution can be preserved in practice no other way" than through courts which can declare void any legislation contrary to the Constitution. The preservation of the people's authority over legislatures rests "particularly with judges."

The Supreme Court was initially made up of jurists who had been intimately connected with the framing of the Constitution and the establishment of its government as law. John Jay (New York), a co-author of The Federalist Papers, served as chief justice for the first six years. The second chief justice, John Rutledge (South Carolina), was appointed by Washington in 1795 as a recess appointment, but was not confirmed by the Senate. Resigning later that year, he was succeeded in 1796 by the third chief justice, Oliver Ellsworth (Connecticut). Both Rutledge and Ellsworth were delegates to the Constitutional Convention. John Marshall (Virginia), the fourth chief justice, had served in the Virginia Ratification Convention in 1788. His 34 years of service on the Court would see some of the most important rulings to help establish the nation the Constitution had begun. Other early members of the Supreme Court who had been delegates to the Constitutional Convention included James Wilson (Pennsylvania) for ten years, and John Blair Jr. (Virginia) for five years.

### Supplementary Text ###
États-Unis

La possibilité d'un procès devant jury varie selon les juridictions américaines. Le système juridique américain s'étant séparé de celui de l'Angleterre à l'époque de la Révolution américaine, les types de procédures qui font appel à un jury dépendent de savoir si de telles affaires étaient jugées par un jury en vertu du droit commun anglais à cette époque, plutôt que des méthodes utilisées dans les tribunaux anglais aujourd'hui. Par exemple, à l'époque, les « cours de droit » anglais jugeaient les affaires de tort ou de droit privé visant à obtenir des dommages-intérêts avec un jury, mais les « cours d'équité » qui jugeaient les affaires civiles visant à obtenir une injonction ou une autre forme de réparation non monétaire n'utilisaient pas de jury. Par conséquent, cette pratique se poursuit dans le droit civil américain, mais dans le droit anglais moderne, seuls les procès pénaux et certaines enquêtes sont susceptibles d'être jugés par un jury.

### Draft ###

### 1. Query Decomposition

"Comment la doctrine du contrôle judiciaire américain..." → How American judicial review doctrine distinguished itself from earlier systems, particularly New York's "Conseil de révision"

Key terms: contrôle judiciaire = judicial review, système de révision = review system

Translation challenge: "Conseil de révision" → Council of Revision. Not standard English legal terminology.

### 2. Historical Context Mapping

Timeframe: Late 18th-early 19th century
Geographic: US constitutional development vs NY state constitutional framework  
Cultural: Anglo-American legal tradition evolution

⟨H≈0.3⟩ The Constitution's birth... Philadelphia summer 1787... delegates wrestling with institutional design... Madison's Federalist No. 10 fears of faction... How to constrain majoritarian excess while preserving democratic legitimacy? Judicial review emerges as compromise solution...

### 3. Institutional Comparison

New York 1777 Constitution:
- Council of Revision: Governor + Supreme Court justices
- Ex ante legislative review power
- Veto authority over state laws
- Executive-judicial collaboration

US Constitutional Convention 1787:
- Multiple proposals for judicial review
- Madison/Wilson: Supreme Court legislative veto
- Rejected 3x in convention
- Hamilton's Federalist 78: written constitution + judicial enforcement = popular sovereignty protection

### 4. Doctrinal Distinctions

Core differences:

**Authority Source**: US = constitutional supremacy + judicial interpretation vs NY = executive-judicial council + legislative compliance

**Ex Post vs Ex Ante**: US = after-law-enactment judicial review vs NY = before-enactment council review

**Separation of Powers**: US = judicial independence from executive vs NY = governor-led council

**Scope**: US = federal law + state constitutions vs NY = state law only

### 5. Evolutionary Pressures

Factors shaping American model:

**Federalism Constraint**: Need mechanism for constitutional interpretation between state & federal authority

**Democratic Legitimacy**: Written constitution as popular sovereign expression requiring judicial protection

**Institutional Experience**: 1789-1803 Marbury v. Madison establishes precedent

**Legal Education Tradition**: American legal academics (Story, Kent) develop constitutional theory

⟨H≈0.8⟩ The peculiar genius of American constitutionalism... not just any judicial review but *written* constitutional review... the parchment barrier theory... how judges become guardians of popular sovereignty rather than mere legal technicians... Hamilton's insight that judges are "least dangerous" branch but most essential for constitutional preservation...

### 6. Synthesis

American judicial review distinctive because:

1. **Written constitutional foundation** vs parliamentary sovereignty
2. **Supreme judicial authority** vs distributed review bodies  
3. **Constitutional interpretation** vs legislative compliance
4. **Federal scope** vs state-specific jurisdiction

New York's Council of Revision influence: structural precedent for judicial involvement in constitutional review, but American founders rejected executive-judicial collaboration model for independent judicial review.

Evolutionary drivers: federal system requirements, written constitution theory, institutional experience, legal education development.

∴ American judicial review represents distinctive synthesis of constitutional government principles requiring institutional innovation beyond mere adaptation of prior systems.

### Answer###
La doctrine du contrôle judiciaire américain s'est distinguée des systèmes précédents par plusieurs innovations fondamentales, particulièrement en ce qui concerne le rôle des tribunaux dans l'interprétation constitutionnelle et la structure institutionnelle du pouvoir judiciaire.

Le système américain a développé une approche où les tribunaux constitutionnels peuvent réguler les actions gouvernementales en vertu de la Constitution, qui constitue la loi fondamentale du pays. Cette approche contraste avec les systèmes antérieurs où le pouvoir législatif avait souvent une prééminence plus marquée. L'influence du Conseil de révision de l'État de New York, qui regroupait le gouverneur et les juges de la cour suprême d'État pour examiner et éventuellement contester l'action législative, a effectivement joué un rôle dans les premières discussions constitutionnelles américaines.

Les fondements théoriques du contrôle judiciaire américain reposent sur l'idée qu'il existe une Constitution écrite fondamentale qui ne peut être modifiée que par des processus législatifs extraordinaires d'approbation nationale puis d'adoption par les États. Les pouvoirs de tous les départements gouvernementaux sont limités aux attributions explicitement énoncées dans la Constitution, et les tribunaux sont chargés de faire appliquer les dispositions constitutionnelles comme loi suprême du pays.

La distinction la plus marquante réside dans le fait que la Constitution américaine a été ratifiée lors de débats publics dans les États, laissant une trace écrite de l'argumentation en faveur du contrôle judiciaire. Les penseurs constitutionnels comme Hamilton, dans le Federalist No. 78, ont développé l'idée qu'une constitution écrite limitée ne peut être préservée que par des tribunaux pouvant déclarer nuls les actes législatifs contraires à celle-ci, cette autorité étant essentielle à la protection de l'autorité du peuple.

L'évolution vers un système plus robuste a été influencée par l'expérience pratique du gouvernement constitutionnel et par la nécessité d'interpréter les limites constitutionnelles des pouvoirs fédéraux et étatiques. Cette évolution s'accompagne d'une conception du judiciaire comme gardien de la souveraineté populaire, distincte des autres branches du gouvernement.