Brilliant dissection in a brief article of the historic roots of the growth of judicial power by judicial assumption of powers not named in the Constitution nor anticipated by the Founders. As brilliant as our Founders were at anticipating problems and trying to provide for a checks and balance system, they never anticipated a Judicial coup by John Marshall.
However illegal or exta-constitutional that assumption of the power to review our laws by interpreting the Constitution may be, the idea that Congress is able or likely to limit them is minuscule. That ship sailed with Marbury vs. Madison and thousands of precedent in opinions by the Federal judiciary without a response by the Congress.
Without some form of Constitutional Amendment, the political nature of our parties will come forth every time a judicial appointment of importance is made at any level of the judiciary.
Sure they did - it was discussed extensively in the Federalist papers. In fact, the issue of judicial review predates the US and dates back to the English civil war.
However, it's extremely telling that while the Constitution goes into almost minute detail about certain operating functions of government, it's incredibly brief about the court.
The SC asserted its right in Marbury, and it's been honored through custom and tradition since. But there has always been a presumption of unity with respect to nat'l security.
However, consider what would have happened if the SC had opposed Lincoln in the conduct of the Civil war? That's where we're going with this if the courts attempt to force the issue.