Actually, the duty to throw out unconstitutional laws is the one not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution (it was merely assumed as a power of judiciary in our common law system). The rest, explicitly mentioned, mainly involve stating where the Court has original jurisdiction (as opposed to appellate, where the throwing-out comes in).
We're basically arguing semantics now. In order to decide whether a law is unconstitutional, the Court must interpret the Constitution (whenever you read a document, you're interpreting it -- that is, ascertaining its meaning, message and/or intent) and see if there is a conflict between the law as passed by Congress and the Constitution. If judges do nothing else, they interpret law, and the Constitution is law (they're not just there to sit pretty and say "Overruled" and "Sustained").
However, most people when faced with a SC ruling they agree with will say "They upheld the Constitution," but when faced with a ruling they don't like they shout "Activist judges, interpreting the Constitution to their own politics!"
You may want to ask yourself if you just don't like Fast Track, and will therefore make any justification for its defeat. In that case, you're arguing Constitutional principles not based on those principles alone, but on how they apply to a case you don't like. In that case, you should just argue Fast Track, not Constitution.
Me, as I've said, I don't have an opinion on Fast Track yet, as I can see both its advantages and dangers. I am just objectively arguing Constitutionality.
Q, But, they are. There rulings are supposed to be within the bounds of the Constitution just as the laws made by congress and signed by the President are. If they step outside those bounds, and get into the rule making business {laws} through their "interpretations", they should be impeached forthwith, as the Constitution calls for. They are breaking the "law". That which they take a sworn oath to uphold.
One of the more egregious "activist" acts by a jurist were the judge in I think{?} Kansas City that created a tax and mandated that it be paid into a new school system. I don't know if the case ever made it to the supreme court, or not. I do know that the "new school system was and is a dismal failure. Some say that Roe vs Wade was the supreme court making law. I disagree. It IS the woman's body. And, besides, any government that has the power to arbitrarily force a woman to bear a child to term, has the power also to force women to have abortions. I.E. China today. But, like I say, it's no skin off my nose whatever the bums decide to do. I know HOW "they" are manipulating the law in "their" facor, but, it is NOT written into the Constitution {The law of the Land? Or not?} that they have the right to do so. They have TAKEN that power, while Congress smiles on benevolently. I don't like the idea. It sets a BAD "precedent" for future judges who might not be as nice as these guys. Peace and love, George.