The question would inevitably arise about whether something was in pursuance thereof, or not.
Maybe some kind of meta-judicial body or structure should have been instituted in the Constitution to deal with such matters. But it wasn’t, and so all the weight went on the fulcrum of what was called the Supreme Court.
Sure!..one more layer of bureaucracy would have worked wonders!...
What were the Founding Fathers thinking!!....../s
Not that mysterious.
Your “meta-judicial body” is the state legislature or governor who does a review of the federal decision or law in light of a good-faith application of the Constitution as written and originally understood.
Most of this would be easy becasue the Supreme Court has long since abandoned even a pretense of constitutional basis for their decisions. It would not be hard for a state to show the unconstitutionality of many of these federal acts.
From there, the state would notify the feds and the world of the unconstitutionality of the act and the state’s rejection and nullification of such act and the state’s intent to protect its citizens from the unconstitutional federal tyranny.