The Words That Made Us: America's Constitutional Conversation, 1760-1840
Reed points this out towards the beginning of the book where he talks about ways the colonists proposed to remain loyal to the Crown while separating from Parliament. I'm not sure if there's a better source, though Reed likely lists them, it's just the book that introduced the concept to me.
This is essentially what the countries you listed did though. Only when they did it Parliament and the Crown realized that they needed to listen or end up with another complete separation.
> Not before they gave themselves that power in Marbury v Madison.
I've been reading The Words that Made us by Akhil Reed Amar which actually makes the argument that Marbury v. Madison wasn't really the Supreme Court giving itself this right but rather stating something tautological to the Framers. Reed's assertion is that no lawyer trained in British law, which would have been all of the Framers who were lawyers, would have understood the Supreme Court to not have the power of judicial review. The implication he's given for it being left out of the Constitution is because the Framers expected all branches to act as checks on each other for unconstitional actions.
He uses the Sedition Act of 1798 as an example. It was never ruled on by the Supreme Court but Jefferson expressly refused to enforce the act and pardoned anyone convicted under it frequently citing that the act was unconstitutional. This Reed argues was how the checks and balances should work with POTUS and SCOTUS stopping Congress from acting beyond its scope.
I'm not sure I agree with him especially when he states that everyone else has gotten it wrong. I just thought it was an interesting argument to bring up here.