But Federalist #78 doesn’t claim the power of judicial review resides solely with the courts. Should the states decide that a federal law is unconstitutional, regardless of whether the Supreme Court has passed on it or OKed it (Obamacare), they have every Constitutional right to refuse to allow it to be enforced within their boundaries. By the same token, the President has a responsibility to not sign bills he knows to be unconstitutional, and should not sign them just to see if the Supreme Court will invalidate them. And the Congress (yeah, fat chance) has a responsibility not to pass legislation it knows to be unconstitutional.
It is far more rational to suppose, that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.
As you have pointed out as well, the problem is not judicial review by the courts it is in most cases the lack thereof.