In its strongest form—advocated most notably by
James Bradley Thayer—the presumption of constitutionality gives Congress, rather than the courts, the primary responsibility for interpreting the Constitution. This view is in tension with the view of
judicial review articulated in
Marbury v. Madison, however. Thus, a less strong form of the presumption, repeatedly articulated by the
Supreme Court of the United States, has become the dominant approach in American law: "[r]espect for a
coordinate branch of Government forbids striking down an
Act of Congress except upon a clear showing of unconstitutionality." Otherwise, a statute should be upheld. Likewise, at the 1787
Philadelphia Convention, Virginia delegate
George Mason said that judges "could declare an unconstitutional law void. But with regard to every law, however unjust, oppressive or pernicious, which did not come plainly under this description, they would be under the necessity as Judges to give it a free course." Professor
Randy Barnett from Georgetown Law argues that such a presumption is itself unconstitutional and suggests that government should be forced to prove that laws that violate liberty are necessary, replacing the presumption of constitutionality with what he calls the "presumption of liberty." ==Outside the United States==