Exactly which clause in the Constition grants the Supreme Court this power and jurisdiction to review acts of Congress for Constitionality in the first place? As I recall, the Supreme Court created this power for themselves out of whole cloth and that it is nowhere enumerated in the Constitution. On the otherhand, the power of Congress to limit the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is clearly written into the Constitution in black and white.
We would be getting into an interesting legal paradox if the Supreme Court overstepped their Constitutional Authority by unconstitutionally making a ruling in an area of law where Congress had constitutionally limited their jurisdiction.
People who are arguing that the Supreme Court has this power are advocating a system very similar to Iran's where an unelected group of Mullahs reign supreme and can over-rule anything done by the elected rerpresentatives of the people.
The Constitution divided the powers of the British monarch (To make laws, to carry them out, and to punish lawbreaking and adjudicate disputes) among three co-equal branches of the government.
There is no question that the Judicial Power of the United States is vested in a Supreme Court, but Congress may ordain and establish inferior courts to share the work.
You dispute that the Judicial Power of the United States includes the power to invalidate laws made by Congress. This is not so clear to me.
"Exactly which clause in the Constition grants the Supreme Court this power and jurisdiction to review acts of Congress for Constitionality in the first place?"
Nowhere. It is implied by vesting the judicial power in the Supreme Court. The power of judicial review was first tested by the Supreme Court in 1802, in Marbury v. Madison. The Founding Fathers were running the country then. Congress didn't attempt to strike down the decision, nor did the President call out the militia, nor did a constitutional amendment or other legislation get passed slapping it down. It was an implied power, discussed by the Founders (Madison referred to it in The Federalist), and put into practice by the Founders with no formal legal or constitutional opposition when they did it.
That power has been used and understood ever since. The words do not appear in the Constitution. It is the fact of the Founders' act in Marbury v. Madison (the same Madison who wrote about the judicial referee in The Federalist) that demonstrated by act that the implied power of judicial review was real.
"As I recall, the Supreme Court created this power for themselves out of whole cloth and that it is nowhere enumerated in the Constitution."
It is nowhere enumerated in the Constitution. The Supreme Court asserted the power, which was discussed during the ratification period, in Marbury v. Madison. Neither Congress nor the President, composed of the Founders themselves, moved to strike the decision, override it or amend the Constitution to prevent it. It stood, among the Founders themselves, because it was their original intent. They wrote the constitution. They decided Marbury. They didn't strike down Marbury. It was their intent that the Supreme Court should have this power.
"On the otherhand, the power of Congress to limit the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is clearly written into the Constitution in black and white."
Yes, it is. But law in Common Law countries is made by courts and by statutes. The Founders did not pen judicial review for constitutionality into the document, because they conceived of "the judicial power" entrusted to the Supreme Court as including the power of constitutional review. We can go through some of the Federalist Papers if you'd like. When the circumstance first came up, in Marbury, the Supreme Court used the power, and the Founder in the White House: Jefferson, and the Founders in the Congress, didn't strike it down or otherwise act as though this was anything other than the way they had designed the system. It was their INTENT that the Supreme Court have this power. They didn't WRITE it, but they ACTED IT OUT.
The Constitution is not the Bible, and the Common Law is not Sola Scriptura.
"We would be getting into an interesting legal paradox if the Supreme Court overstepped their Constitutional Authority by unconstitutionally making a ruling in an area of law where Congress had constitutionally limited their jurisdiction."
Yes, we would indeed. And that is why it would provoke a constitutional crisis which would be a test of power decided by the public. I expect that, were the issue to be lex solis citizenship and the 14th America, the Supreme Court standing, 9-0, on Marbury v. Madison would trump a newfangled interpretation of the jurisdiction clause in Article III by Congress. The People would see, properly, that Congress sought to eliminate judicial review, and would not acquiesce to such a radical change of the constitutional structure of the country.
"People who are arguing that the Supreme Court has this power are advocating a system very similar to Iran's where an unelected group of Mullahs reign supreme and can over-rule anything done by the elected rerpresentatives of the people."
Hogwash.
People who advocated that the Supreme Court has this power included Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, John Marshall and Abraham Lincoln. Are they reduced to a bunch of Taliban because they think Marbury v. Madison was rightly decided and you don't?