To start with, the Constitution does NOT grant SCOTUS the final say over any matter. SCOTUS gave ITSELF that power, in Marberry Vs Madison (sp?)
Also, you are wrong in as much as the Congress DOES have the power to interpret the Constitution.
James Madison, “Father of the Constitution” was implored Congress, in a speech, to further define the rules of Citizenship, both Natural Born and Naturalized.
I suggest you go back and read some of Newt Gingrich's writings about reining in our imperial courts. Many of your views are unsound politically and legally.
No, your assertions are patently false. Marbury v. Madison (1803) did not give the final say over interpreting the constitution to the courts. The Constitution itself gave--and was intended to give--that power to SCOTUS. Marbury v. Madison was simply the first time that this constitutional power was used by the Court.
Read Federalist 78. It explicitly states that SCOTUS must have the final say on the Constitution if limited government is to be protected. Federalist 78 clearly states: The complete independence of the courts of justice is peculiarly essential in a limited Constitution. By a limited Constitution, I understand one which contains certain specified exceptions to the legislative authority; such, for instance, as that it shall pass no bills of attainder, no ex post facto laws, and the like. Limitations of this kind can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing.
--Federalist 78
Also, you are wrong in as much as the Congress DOES have the power to interpret the Constitution. James Madison, “Father of the Constitution” was implored Congress, in a speech, to further define the rules of Citizenship, both Natural Born and Naturalized.
That is a non-sequitur. You suggest that the Congress has the judicial power to interpret the Constitution and as proof of it you cite James Madison giving a speech calling upon Congress to pass legislation further clarifying the naturalization process. This is not a judicial act interpreting the law, this is a legislative act defining law.
The point you argue here does not prove Congress has the power to judicially interpret the Constitution, it shows only that James Madison believed Congress had the power to legislate concerning the naturalization process and the definitions of legal terms, either through statute or constitutional amendment. A point that no one disputes. The power to legislate is explicitly given to Congress and is not, in the technical sense, an exercise of judicial power over the Constitution; it is an exercise of a legislative power explicitly delegated to Congress in Article I.
Also, you are wrong in as much as the Congress DOES have the power to interpret the Constitution.
Another straw man, I never said that Congress does not have any power to interpret the Constitution, I said it depends on what you mean by the phrase "power to interpret." All branches must interpret the constitution to some extent in order to exercise their functions, but Congress cannot exercise final judicial authority over the meaning of the constitution. Congress can only act within the legislative powers assigned to it.
Congress may change the interpretation of simple statutes by passing other simple statutes to clarify and further define the law. However, Congress may NOT alter the definitions of terms in the Constitution via simple statute, because that is effectively amending the Constitution. When Congress wishes to clarify or further define provisions within the Constitution, it MUST do it through the amendment process. If Congress could change the Constitution through simple statute, there would be no point to having a constitution or an amendment process. Why bother to amend the Constitution if you can simply remove all restraints on your power by passing a simple statute? To allow such a thing is to essentially make a farce out of the idea of a limited government. Why not just have an all powerful parliament, like Britain?
Many of your views are unsound politically and legally.
Though I agree that our courts need to be reined in from their abuse of power and bad legal judgement. Your statements concerning the American constitutional system of separation of powers are unfounded legally, politically, and even historically. A quick recourse to the words of the Founders themselves and the Federalist papers will quickly reveal that. I recommend reading Federalist 78, 47, 48, and 51 concerning the separation of powers. These documents give the basic logic behind the role of the judiciary and the separation of powers.