So, you are telling me that there is no place in the constitution that says that lower courts can overturn an act of congress.
Is there something wrong with the Supreme Court that they don't notice that establishing Catholicism as the official religion is contrary to the Constitution?
Also, the President and each Congressman ALSO take the same oath to uphold the Constitution. They could not pass such a law without realizing they were violating the 1st amendment.
So...why do we need a lower court judge to do this job. He is inferior to the Congress, created by the Congress, and answerable to the Congress?
No, I was telling you the complete opposite actually. "Overturning" a law is essentially just a court's way of saying, "The Constitution does not allow us to enforce this B.S."
Is there something wrong with the Supreme Court that they don't notice that establishing Catholicism as the official religion is contrary to the Constitution?
No, I suspect the Supreme Court would agree with the lower court if the case went that far.
the President and each Congressman ALSO take the same oath to uphold the Constitution. They could not pass such a law without realizing they were violating the 1st amendment.
Yeah right. As if Congress and the President give a flying fig about whether their laws violate the Constitution. Please. Have you seen the U.S. Code lately? :-)
why do we need a lower court judge to do this job. He is inferior to the Congress, created by the Congress, and answerable to the Congress?
We don't *need* them. Congress just decided this is the way we're going to do things. The alternative is to try federal cases in state courts. But state courts can refuse to enforce federal laws same as the federal courts can.