[Non-Sequitur]

The underlying reason why the federal judiciary was not granted the authority to interpret the Constitution was stated very succinctly by John Marshall who would later become Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court¯“the judicial power cannot extend to political compacts.”

"It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each.

So if a law be in opposition to the constitution; if both the law and the constitution apply to a particular case, so that the court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the constitution; or conformably to the constitution, disregarding the law; the court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty." -- Chief Justice John Marshall

[Who is John Galt?]

"It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is…" -- Chief Justice John Marshall

Sorry, but you are (once again ;>) presenting a ‘circular argument.’ Suggesting that the court has the final say simply because the court says it has the final say is neither reasonable nor authoritative…

;>)