Two other co-equal branches swear an oath to protect and defend the Constitution. I always ask folks who think that only the SCOTUS can interpret the document how in the world a President or a Congressman can possibly keep their sworn oath if they're not allowed to interpret the document they've sworn to defend? Never had a good answer yet.
Marbury is regularly cited as the justification for the judicial supremacist heresy, but in fact, Justice Marshall, in that decision makes it clear that THE CONSTITUTION IS SUPREME, NOT THE COURTS, AND THAT ALL THREE BRANCHES ARE BOUND BY ITS PROVISIONS.
In fact, that's the summation of his arguments.
Here are the closing paragraphs of Marbury vs. Madison:
From these, and many other selections which might be made, it is apparent, that the framers of the constitution contemplated that instrument as a rule for the government of courts, as well as of the legislature. Why otherwise does it direct the judges to take an oath to support it? This oath certainly applies, in an especial manner, to their conduct in their official character. How immoral to impose it on them, if they were to be used as the instruments, and the knowing instruments, for violating what they swear to support!
The oath of office, too, imposed by the legislature, is completely demonstrative of the legislative opinion on this subject. It is in these words: "I do solemnly swear that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich; and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge all the duties incumbent on me as _____, according to the best of my abilities and understanding, agreeably to the constitution, and laws of the United States." Why does a Judge swear to discharge his duties agreeably the constitution of the United States, if that constitution forms no rule for his government? If it is closed upon him, and cannot be inspected by him?
If such be the real state of things, this is worse than solemn mockery. To prescribe, or to take this oath, becomes equally a crime.
It is also not entirely unworthy of observation that in declaring what shall be the supreme law of the land, the constitution itself is first mentioned; and not the laws of the United States generally, but those only which shall be made in pursuance of the constitution, have that rank.
Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void; and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.
That may not be what the authors intended, I personally believe it's not, but nevertheless that's how it has been in practice since Marbury v Madison became the catalyst for transforming the USCC into the final arbiter of the Constitution. If you can find a way to overturn the judiciary branch's assumption of powers that were not intentionally, specifically granted to it by the authors the American people will be eternally in your debt.
It's very simple. Elect a President, and Congressmen and Senators, who understand what's actually going on...how out of whack the balance of powers truly is...and who have the courage to expend their political capital to confront this head on.
There is no other way to accomplish what you say.
Again, that's one of the reasons I support Alan Keyes for President in 2008. He's the only one who understands this, and who has the proven courage to act in this important regard.
And he has less of a chance of being elected president next year than I do.