[bvw]

ONLY the USSC which decides that a law is unconstitional

There's yet another example of your pig-headedness. That is simply, not completely true. It is true that the USSCT claims that it is the final arbitrator, and that most judicial and policing authorities act upon a general acceptance of that claim, yet not everyone does nor should accept that completely.

In the not-so-distant past -- as many have attempted to have your tin-ears hear -- that claim of sovereignity over the Constitution by the US Supreme Court was not so generally accepted, it was rejected, counter-claims of authority are made, have been made.

The very first words of the Constitution say WHO owns the charter! Who is sovereign over the Constitution. And those are not "The Supreme Court, in order to ...", they are "We, the People, in order to ..."

From a practical view of good order and clear judgement in the Courts it is not clear at all as to why a SOLE, unchallengeable, arbitrator of Constitutional authority is needed.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Since you don't understand the role of the USSC it is not difficult to see why you don't understand many of the issues here. Obviously a nation that claims to have a Law of the Land cannot have dozens of intrepretations as to what that Law is without chaos erupting. Misunderstanding this point means you don't understand what a Constitution even is. Yet, in your ignorance, you call me "pig-headed."

The Court is not "sovereign" over the Constitution but is established to be its ultimate interpreter. That was never in question to the Founders. Clearly the People cannot establish a "more Perfect Union" if courts throughout that Union operate with no common understanding of what the Constitution, the fundamental Law, means. That is the role of the USSC as established by the Founders.

I suggest you read some real history and forget the fantasy-laden sources you apparently rely upon.