Editing Edward Coke (section)

====''Dr. Bonham's Case''====
{{main|Dr. Bonham's Case}}
[[File:Edward Coke LCJ.jpg|thumb|The meaning of Coke's ruling in ''Thomas Bonham v College of Physicians'' has been disputed over the years.]]

''Thomas Bonham v College of Physicians'', commonly known as ''Dr. Bonham's Case'' was a decision of the [[Court of Common Pleas (England)|Court of Common Pleas]] under Coke in which he ruled that

{{blockquote|in many cases, the common law will controul Acts of Parliament, and sometimes adjudge them to be utterly void: for when an Act of Parliament is against common right and reason, or repugnant, or impossible to be performed, the common law will controul it, and adjudge such Act to be void<ref name=wil>{{Harvnb|Williams|2006|p=111}}</ref>}}

Coke's meaning has been disputed over the years; some interpret his judgment as referring to judicial review of statutes to correct misunderstandings which would render them unfair,<ref>{{Harvnb|Gray|1972|p=36}}</ref> while others argue he meant that the common law courts have the power to completely strike down those statutes they deem to be repugnant.<ref>{{Harvnb|Berger|1969|p=527}}</ref><ref>{{Harvnb|Orth|1999|p=33}}</ref>

Whatever Coke's meaning, after an initial period of application, ''Bonham's Case'' was thrown aside in favour of the growing doctrine of [[Parliamentary sovereignty]]. Initially written down by [[William Blackstone]], this theory makes Parliament the sovereign law-maker, preventing the common law courts from not only throwing aside but also reviewing statutes in the fashion Coke suggested.<ref>{{Harvnb|Plucknett|1942|p=176}}</ref> Parliamentary sovereignty is now the universally-accepted judicial doctrine in England and Wales.<ref>{{Harvnb|Elliott|2004|p=546}}</ref> ''Bonham's Case'' met a mixed reaction at the time, with the King and [[Thomas Egerton, 1st Viscount Brackley|Lord Ellesmere]] both deeply unhappy with it.<ref>{{Harvnb|Bowen|1957|p=170}}</ref> Nineteenth and twentieth-century academics are scarcely more favourable, calling it "a foolish doctrine alleged to have been laid down extra-judicially",<ref>{{Harvnb|Orth|1999|p=37}}</ref> and an "abortion".<ref>{{Harvnb|Allott|1990|p=379}}</ref>

In the United States, Coke's decision met with a better reaction. During the legal and public campaigns against the [[Writ of assistance|writs of assistance]] and [[Stamp Act 1765]], ''Bonham's Case'' was given as a justification for nullifying the legislation.<ref name=mor429>{{Harvnb|Morris|1940|p=429}}</ref> ''[[Marbury v. Madison]]'', the American case which forms the basis for the exercise of [[judicial review in the United States]] under [[Article Three of the United States Constitution|Article III]] of the [[United States Constitution|Constitution]], uses the words "void" and "repugnant", seen as a direct reference to Coke.<ref>{{Harvnb|Feldman|2004|p=29}}</ref> Some academics, such as [[Edward Samuel Corwin]], have argued that Coke's work in ''Bonham's Case'' forms the basis of judicial review and the declaration of legislation as unconstitutional in the United States.<ref>{{Harvnb|Corwin|1929|p=371}}</ref> Gary L. McDowell calls this "one of the most enduring myths of American constitutional law and theory, to say nothing of history", pointing out that at no point during the [[Constitutional Convention (United States)|Constitutional Convention]] was ''Bonham's Case'' referenced.<ref>{{Harvnb|McDowell|1993|pp=395–397}}</ref>