In President Lincoln's day, each branch was viewed as having the power to interpret the Constitution for itself.
Lincoln addressed this in his first inaugural address:
"I do not forget the position assumed by some that constitutional questions are to be decided by the Supreme Court, nor do I deny that such decisions must be binding in any case upon the parties to a suit as to the object of that suit, while they are also entitled to very high respect and consideration in all parallel cases by all other departments of the Government. And while it is obviously possible that such decision may be erroneous in any given case, still the evil effect following it, being limited to that particular case, with the chance that it may be overruled and never become a precedent for other cases, can better be borne than could the evils of a different practice. At the same time, the candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal."
You don't want to fall into the very common trap of judging historical people by modern day standards.
Walt
HOW DOES THIS SYSTEM WORK?
The legislature issues a law and the Executive interprets the Constitution to say it is unconstitutional and ignores it.
The Supreme Court issues a ruling and the Executive disagrees with the interpretation and ignores it.
If the branches disagree, who is the arbiter? Do they flip a coin or what?
The Executive can just do as it pleases. Checks and balances have been removed.
Please explain how the legislature or judiciary could exert any power at all.
What about Marbury v. Madison, from 1803?
U.S. Supreme Court
MARBURY v. MADISON, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)
5 U.S. 137
* * *
The act to establish the judicial courts of the United States authorizes the supreme court 'to issue writs of mandamus, in cases warranted by the principles and usages of law, to any courts appointed, or persons holding office, under the authority of the United States.'
* * *
The constitution vests the whole judicial power of the United States in one supreme court, and such inferior courts as congress shall, from time to time, ordain and establish. This power is expressly extended to all cases arising under the laws of the United States; and consequently, in some form, may be exercised over the present case; because the right claimed is given by a law of the United States.
* * *
It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each. So if a law be in opposition to the constitution: if both the law and the constitution apply to a particular case, so that the court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the constitution; or conformably to the constitution, disregarding the law: the court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty.
* * *
[Lincoln] I do not forget the position assumed by some that constitutional questions are to be decided by the Supreme Court
ASSUMED? BY SOME? See again, Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 1803. It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.
[Lincoln] nor do I deny that such decisions must be binding in any case upon the parties to a suit as to the object of that suit, while they are also entitled to very high respect and consideration in all parallel cases by all other departments of the Government.
HOW DOES THIS WORK?
A Supreme Court decision does NOT set precedent and is binding only upon the parties to a suit. Perhaps a million Jane Roe's would have to litigate through the court annually... on an emergency basis of course...
[Lincoln] And while it is obviously possible that such decision may be erroneous in any given case, still the evil effect following it, being limited to that particular case, with the chance that it may be overruled and never become a precedent for other cases, can better be borne than could the evils of a different practice.
Did Lincoln repeal stare decisis?
[Lincoln] At the same time, the candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal."
The Supreme Court does, in fact, set precedent. Norma McCorvey is not the only woman affected by the decision in Roe v. Wade.
The sky has not fallen. The Judiciary cannot be as tyrannical as can the Executive. The Executive has an army.
Why would it be irrevocable? Is Roe v. Wade irrevocable? Is Plessy v. Ferguson irrevocable? Dred Scott?
Either the the Constitution can be amended, or the court can reverse itself.