[The_Victor]

That said, we have, for right and wrong, allowed the Supreme Court to be the arbitor of what is, and is not, Constitutional. The Court said "yes," so the answer is "yes."

The sad part of the Maybury vs. Madison decision is that Congress has quit trying to write Constitutional law. They write what they want, and if the Supreme Court doesn't strike it down, then it must be OK. The system would work better if the other branches of government actually tried to defend the Constitution.

[Non-Sequitur]

The sad part of the Maybury vs. Madison decision is that Congress has quit trying to write Constitutional law. They write what they want, and if the Supreme Court doesn't strike it down, then it must be OK. The system would work better if the other branches of government actually tried to defend the Constitution.

"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." - Chief Justice Marshall, Marbury v Madison

The question remains, if not the Supreme Court then who?