[Doug Loss]

First, Madison's opinion here is not part of the Constitution. Now that that's out of the way, you misunderstand what he wrote anyway. He said, "in all questions submitted to it by the forms of the Constitution." This means in all things the Constitution says in in the purview of the Supreme Court. It quite specifically doesn't say that ruling on the constitutionality of legislation is within that purview. What Madison says here is that the Supreme Court's rulings can't be overturned at the whims of the Executive or the Legislative branches. If you read the proceedings of the Constitutional Convention, you'll see that the Founders debated whether to give the Supreme Court authority to rule over the constitutionality of legislation and rejected that idea. Marshall usurped that authority anyway and no one stopped him or the succeeding Courts.

[MamaTexan]

First, Madison's opinion here is not part of the Constitution.

Neither is Marbury vs Madison.

Madison's 'opinion' came from an official writing in his capacity as a member of the House and in response to a legal petition from the States of Virgina and Kentucky, not was it only HIS opinion, as the entire House of Representatives concurred.

-----

Now that that's out of the way, you misunderstand what he wrote anyway.

Excuse me, but do not be so arrogant as to presume to tell me something means something other than what it plainly says.

Now that we have that out of the way, what Madison wrote did NOT say 'that the Supreme Court's rulings can't be overturned at the whims of the Executive or the Legislative branches.', he specifically said-

this resort must necessarily be deemed the last in relation to the authorities of the other departments of the government;

Which MEANS the federal judiciary is the authority for judging the constitutionality of the actions of the other branches of the federal government.

-----

If you read the proceedings of the Constitutional Convention

Been there, done that.

-----

Marshall usurped that authority anyway

Marshall usurped nothing. If you feel otherwise, would you care to give me direct quote from that decision in support of your conclusion, or are spouting baseless generalities more your cup of tea?