The suggestion that the Court should hear evidence touching the question of the constitutionality of a statute is somewhat startling when the possible far-reaching effect of such a course is, upon reflection, rendered apparent. (Barker v. State Fish Commission.)
Highly inconvenient as it may be, it is true of some legislative powers limited by definition … that the validity of the exercise of the power must sometimes depend on facts, facts which somehow must be ascertained by the court responsible for deciding the validity of the law. (per Dixon C.J. in Commonwealth Freighters Pty Ltd v. Sneddon).
Judicial review of the validity of legislation in a federal system may be regarded as an exercise in the interpretation of legal texts—ascertaining whether the impugned law conflicts with the superior law of the constitution—and therefore as a matter of law in which evidence plays no part or at best a subsidiary one. In the seminal case of Marbury v. Madison, Marshall C.J. ,thus described judicial review: “If two laws conflict with each other”, then in that event “the courts must decide on the operation of each”.