Did John Marshall go beyond the Constitution when he applied the concept of judicial review in Marbury?

Many originalists would answer "yes," because judicial review isn't enumerated as a power of the Judicial Branch in the Constitution.

On the other hand, judicial review was already an established practice when the Constitution was written, and the Framers, many of whom were lawyers with knowledge of court procedure, didn't explicitly forbid it. Article III makes no mention of how the Judicial Branch should exercise jurisprudence. Lack of instruction tends to imply the Framers intentionally allowed flexibility and a degree of autonomy in determining the courts' operation. If they had no intention for the Judicial Branch to act as a check on the power of the other two branches, they could have set more explicit guidelines for the judiciary to follow.

As John Marshall pointed out in his opinion for Marbury v. Madison, (1803), without the power of judicial review, there would be no way to ensure Congress or the President adhered to Constitutional mandates, which would render the document moot.