[exmarine]

Apparently you aren't aware that it is the Supreme Court which determines what is constitutional and what is not, not Congress.

I do not think that is entirely accurate. How can the other two branches properly discharge their oaths to "defend and protect" the Constitution if they are not allowed to determine what is constitutional and what isn't? And when the courts exceed their authority in their rulings (Dred Scott, Roe, Doe, Lawrence v. Texas, etc.), are the other two branches to just stand by and allow such perversions of the law? No, they cannot since they have taken oaths to "defend and protect" the Constitution. Clearly, the courts are not the ONLY arbiters of what is constitutional and what isn't. Who is to hold bad judges accountable? Why is there a remedy of impeachment of bad judges?

[Non-Sequitur]

Because the Constitution gives the Supreme Court either original or appellate jurisdiction on all cases arising under the Constitution, the laws of the United States, etc. and so forth. To the Supreme Court. Not Congress. Not the President.

And when the courts exceed their authority in their rulings (Dred Scott, Roe, Doe, Lawrence v. Texas, etc.), are the other two branches to just stand by and allow such perversions of the law?

In the first case, the courts did not exceed their authority in either of those cases. In the second case, Congress can propose amendments to the Constitution that supercede any decision the Supreme Court may hand down and, if passed, send them to the states for ratification.

Who is to hold bad judges accountable? Why is there a remedy of impeachment of bad judges?

There is a remedy of impeachment for judges for misbehavior. However, your disagreeing with their decisions does not constitute bad behavior.