“That’s the job of SCOTUS”
Says who? Not the Constitution.
Article III, Section 2:
The judicial power [of the Supreme Court] shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States,...
Yeah, the Constitution. If you think something is unconstitutional, you petition the Supreme Court. If you lose, you are wrong. Those are the rules in the Constitution.
The judicial power [of the Supreme Court] shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States,...
Yeah, the Constitution. If you think something is unconstitutional, you petition the Supreme Court. If you lose, you are wrong. Those are the rules in the Constitution.
Except that this isn't what the part of Art III, Sec. 2 you quoted actually says. It's saying that the SCOTUS has jurisdiction over all cases arising in the United States. Not that the word of the SCOTUS is final in determining constitutionality of a law. That doctrine only came into place with the (wrongly decided) Marbury v. Madison (1803) case. In which the SCOTUS gave to itself, without constitutional mandate, the right to determine constitutionality with finality. Circular reasoning which is best done away with.
“Yeah, the Constitution. If you think something is unconstitutional, you petition the Supreme Court. If you lose, you are wrong. Those are the rules in the Constitution”
I realize you’re merely parroting currently popular assumptions, I’ll be patient. But it doesn’t say that. Talk about an inflated understanding! That covers jurisdiction, not final and infallible authority.
Firstly, it doesn’t even say judicial review exists, though some gave argued it’s implied in the phrase “judicial power.” Usually roundabout reasoning based on the supremacy clause is invoked to justify that inexplicitly expressed power.
Secondly, it doesn’t say that’s the only way to declare something unconstitutional, nor that SCOTUS gets the last say. If the states did not give up sovereignty except according to what is expressly granted to the feds or necessary to what’s granted and proper according to other portions of the agreement, what is to prevent it from asserting that sovereignty should SCOTUS fail to protect it? What about popular sovereignty, for that matter, and individual citizens in the jury box? Are they honor bound to follow SCOTUS when they perceive it to be wrong?
Why, aside from convenience and in the interests of preventing war? No good reason. Certainly not in the Constitution, and absolutely not in the section you cite.