You better check Marbury vs. Madison.
The critical importance of Marbury is the assumption of several powers by the Supreme Court. One was the authority to declare acts of Congress, and by implication acts of the president, unconstitutional if they exceeded the powers granted by the Constitution. But even more important, the Court became the arbiter of the Constitution, the final authority on what the document meant. As such, the Supreme Court became in fact as well as in theory an equal partner in government, and it has played that role ever since.
Juries don't get to decide the constitutionality of laws.
By all means, explain the contradiction between that analysis of Marbury v Madison and John Jay's statement.
Your qoute says nothing about juries. Get a grip. Just because the USSC is the "final" arbiter when working a suit through the court system in no way prohibits a jury from deciding the fate of a law as well.