A law can certainly be written by Congress, but that law can still be declared unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court. If that happens, then the only recourse after that is a Constitutional Amendment.
I’m supportive of Constitutional Amendments, as a viable process, because there are adequate protections. But I’m not supportive of a Constitutional Convention, because I don’t see that process as clear cut, and thus it can “go bad” in some terrible ways.
And then finally, it should be noted carefully that when I talk about Executive Privilege and the Separation of Powers, that this should not be construed as taking “Obama’s side”. It’s a commentary on the powers of the “Office of the President of the United a State of America” ... which is an “institution” and one of the three branches of government. In other words, I would be saying the same thing no matter who happened to be in office.
Jurisdiction stripping - Congress may define the jurisdiction of the judiciary through the simultaneous use of two powers.[1] First, Congress holds the power to create (and, implicitly, to define the jurisdiction of) federal courts inferior to the Supreme Court (i.e. Courts of Appeals, District Courts, and various other Article I and Article III tribunals). This court-creating power is granted both in the congressional powers clause (Art. I, § 8, Cl. 9) and in the judicial vesting clause (Art. III, § 1). Second, Congress has the power to make exceptions to and regulations of the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. This court-limiting power is granted in the Exceptions Clause (Art. III, § 2). By exercising these powers in concert, Congress may effectively eliminate any judicial review of certain federal legislative or executive actions and of certain state actions, or alternatively transfer the judicial review responsibility to state courts by "knocking [federal courts]...out of the game."