I seem to recall that FDR had a plan to deal with the USSC.
So who was the final arbiter of the law in that instance, FDR or SCOTUS?
Marbury occurred in 1803, 14 short years after the Constitution was ratified. The signatories were still around, yet not a peep on the ruling (other than Jefferson).
And as I explained to you, Marbury did not hold that SCOTUS is the final authority on the Constitution. More recent commentators may have used Marbury in order to make that claim, but there's no justification of it from the ruling itself.
Yep. Now, for the third time, please tell me how it "ought to be".
That hasn't even been the subject of the conversation. I'd hope we can both agree in the abstract that the Constitution "ought to be" followed. It's the meaning of that statement that's the subject of dispute. Hence, the dispute centers around what is, not what ought to be.
That was not the ruling, no. But that was the effect.
"In essence, he declared that Madison should have delivered the commission to Marbury, but then held that the section of the Judiciary Act of 1789 that gave the Supreme Court the power to issue writs of mandamus exceeded the authority allotted the Court under Article III of the Constitution, and was therefore null and void."
The USSC ruled that a Congressional Act was unconstitutional. It positioned itself as final arbitor.