I've heard this argued by those that don't like some of the SCOTUS decisions, particularly Mark Levin, but Alexander Hamilton clearly states this to be a responsibility of the court in the Federalist Paper 78.
Some perplexity respecting the rights of the courts to pronounce legislative acts void, because contrary to the Constitution, has arisen from an imagination that the doctrine would imply a superiority of the judiciary to the legislative power. It is urged that the authority which can declare the acts of another void, must necessarily be superior to the one whose acts may be declared void. As this doctrine is of great importance in all the American constitutions, a brief discussion of the ground on which it rests cannot be unacceptable.
There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.
TonyRo76:
AMEN! I've said for a long time, including here on FR, that Marbury v. Madison was the High Court's first major anti-Constitutional power grab.
Marshall didn't make a 'power grab' in Marbury, -- as he agreed that the SCOTUS was also limited in its power by the Constitution in his conclusion.
-- It was later courts that misused & misinterpreted Marbury, -- and at various times both Congress & the Executive branches have 'gone along' with the SCOTUS grab; --- when it suited their purpose to make power grabs of their own. --
Even states have cooperated with such Court misinterpretations -- as California shows by its delight in being able to infringe on its citizens right to bear arms.