Yeah that's how I remember my 7th Grade Civics class. Apparently this Robert Gordon person was home sick that week.
Or more likely, he's terminally STOO-PID
:-)
Your seventh grade civics class sucked.
The purpose of the Supreme Court is to reconcile differences between competing sectors of government, such as two states, or a state and the federal government, or when Congress has passed conflicting laws.
Given that, it is entirely sensible for the Court to establish that a given congressional statute (lower law) is in inadverdent conflict with a higher law (the constitution) and rule that the higher law takes precedence. The first check against Congress passing unconstitutional law is Congress itself. After that, the President can veto ("I refuse") a law, which he believes in unconstitutional. It is gravely unfortunate that the Presidential veto has become a means of the President wielding legislative power, rather than executive power. Congress can, however, disagree with the President and override his veto, and I don't believe it was not unheard of for Senators to override a veto of a bill they hadn't liked because they believed the president was wrong to legislate by vetoing it.
It is far more questionnable (and in my mind, quite unlikely) that the founding fathers intended for the Court to have the authority to override an interpretation of Congress and the President that a given law is unconstitutional. And it is absolutely abominable for the president to sign a law which he believes is likely unconstitutional in the expectation that the Supreme Court will strike it down for him.