Says who? You? Us? Sure that is a reasonable position to take and I share it but where is this documented and agreed to by the Supreme Court? There are no detailed guidelines for how they should interpret the Constitution. Seven communists could be placed into the Supreme Court and they could choose to completely ignore the Constitution all together if they wanted to. However our system of government was designed with a remedy for that and it is called ...impeachment.
Common sense, for one. If city counsel makes a law making it illegal to run a red light, then how do you interpret that law? You START by the actual text of the law. If there’s some question THEN you look at evidence of intent like discussion, statements and debate among those who voted leading up to the passing of the law to find out what they intended. Otherwise, laws incorporated by their language and intent mean nothing. That is common sense. SCOTUS has long-since proven that language means little to them and they have long since abandoned even the appearance of basing their decisions on any kind of constitutional basis.
There is nothing in the Constitution that grants unilateral power to the feds to interpret the Constitution nor is there anything prohibiting the people and the states from interpreting the Constitution. To presume unilateral federal commandeering of constitutional interpretation is like telling the fox after he’s broken his chain to be good & not eat the hens. No, it’s the owner’s job to reattach the chain to the fox. WE are the owners of OUR freedom and OUR Constitution. It is up to the American People through their states to reattach the constitutional chain to the fox. Since the fox has grown into some kind of T-Rex who will not be controlled, the states must begin by circling the wagons and fighting defensively for their own safety and survival.
As far as remedies go, sure impeachment is a remedy. But like most remedies being proposed, that remedy depends on the feds imposing those penalties on itself. That’s why its not happening. In the meantime, there is NOTHING in the Constitution to prevent states form acting against the tyranny of unconstitutional federal acts. The Supremacy Clause backs it and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments confirm it.
“[I]n declaring what shall be the supreme law of the land, the Constitution itself is first mentioned, and not the laws of the United States generally, but those only which shall be made in pursuance of the Constitution, have that rank. Thus, the particular phraseology of the Constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written Constitutions, that a law repugnant to the Constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.” Marbury vs. Madison, 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 180 (1803).