More ad hominem. You basically quote Marbury vs. Madison as if though that removes Presidential perogatives regarding enforcement of the law, which is his perogative. Where a court holding is opposed to the Constitution, the President’s oath states that his duty is to the Constitution; it does not mention the Supreme Court’s opinion at all. If you are saying that no President has ever ignored the Court, or altered it because of a disagreement on the Constitution, you are wrong. See Jackson, see also Abraham Lincoln, and a slew of administrations that have altered the size of the court or threatened to over holdings of the Court. It’s raw power and public opinion when things get down to brass tacks on an issue. Not neat and clean at all.
So you went to Brigham Young Law School, and studied under Rex Lee, since you would have crowed about Harvard if you had attended. As I said, my legal edumacation is at the more prestigious institution, since such things seem to matter to you. You’ll have to knock off the claims to a superior education and find more support than Marbury v. Madison, which a good High School student should know of at least in general terms.
Original jurisdiction only applies in a few areas for the Supreme Court. The rest can dissappear in a single statute if Congress so chooses.
Do they have a Harvard mail order law degree? Because if you actually went to Harvard, you wouldn’t be spouting such asininity.
I’ve provided Supreme Court decisions covering the time period from 1803 with Marbury to 2006 with Cuno which unequivocally state that the Supreme Court interprets the Constitution. You do understand that the concepts of precedent and stare decisis are not flavors of ice cream or constellations, don’t you?
You, on the other hand, have cited no text from the Constitution nor identified any decisions which state that the President has constitutional authority to repudiate a Supreme Court decision interpreting the Constitution and apply his own interpretation.
Packing the court or limiting its jurisdiction have nothing to do with what branch of the federal government possesses the authority to interpret the Constitution.