Gonna do Congress while you're at it, or are Hillary and Teddy already perfect as far as your concerned?
Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States
That includes any laws passed by Congress.
That is authority to rule on cases of law, not to create, rewrite, or nullify the law.
If the constitutionality of federal law is not within their pervue, there is no point in them being Constitutional scholars or studying Constitutional Law. All that's left is to rule on propriety of the process.
Again, if I'm wrong, why did the SC fail to act for 140 years?
Fail to act on what? Marbury v Madison was in 1803. You seem to be interested in revising more than the Constitution.
Like all the amendments on partial birth abortion that keep getting overturned? The supreme court has already shown that if an amendment goes against how they have define the Constitution, they will just ignore it, or strike it down before it can be ratified.
What amendments on partial birth abortion? When has Congress drafted such an amendment and submitted it to the States for ratification?
Sure. If you've got the magic formula, let's do it. Otherwise you'll have to live with the fact that they represent people like themselves that you either have to find a way to avoid civil war with, or kill.
By the way, the principal purpose of the Consitution is to avoid having a civil war every 20 years. So far we're beating the average.
That includes any laws passed by Congress.
Includes seeing the cases, not rewriting the law, and I've got the framers and the first 140 years of Legislators and Justices in agreement on this. Its not even questionable.
If the constitutionality of federal law is not within their pervue, there is no point in them being Constitutional scholars or studying Constitutional Law. All that's left is to rule on propriety of the process.
They are to do what all judges are to do. Try a case by the law and rule on it. They have many purposes all defined explicitly in Section 3. Do you think that had the framers intended the SC to have veto power on the legislature and executive that they would have been clear about it, like they were with the executives veto power, so that it wouldn't take 140 years for it to be understood?
Fail to act on what? Marbury v Madison was in 1803. You seem to be interested in revising more than the Constitution.
There was no issue of a law being constitutional in Marbury v. Madison. It was a case of whether an incoming President could be forced to act on a previous President's promised commission. That's mechanical, not super-legislative. Like a legislator suing the whip for more time on the floor.