Sure. If you've got the magic formula, let's do it. Otherwise you'll have to live with the fact that they represent people like themselves that you either have to find a way to avoid civil war with, or kill.
By the way, the principal purpose of the Consitution is to avoid having a civil war every 20 years. So far we're beating the average.
That includes any laws passed by Congress.
Includes seeing the cases, not rewriting the law, and I've got the framers and the first 140 years of Legislators and Justices in agreement on this. Its not even questionable.
If the constitutionality of federal law is not within their pervue, there is no point in them being Constitutional scholars or studying Constitutional Law. All that's left is to rule on propriety of the process.
They are to do what all judges are to do. Try a case by the law and rule on it. They have many purposes all defined explicitly in Section 3. Do you think that had the framers intended the SC to have veto power on the legislature and executive that they would have been clear about it, like they were with the executives veto power, so that it wouldn't take 140 years for it to be understood?
Fail to act on what? Marbury v Madison was in 1803. You seem to be interested in revising more than the Constitution.
There was no issue of a law being constitutional in Marbury v. Madison. It was a case of whether an incoming President could be forced to act on a previous President's promised commission. That's mechanical, not super-legislative. Like a legislator suing the whip for more time on the floor.
They don't "rewrite law". They rule on the constitutionality of laws. It's left to Congress to re-write them if necessary.
They are to do what all judges are to do. Try a case by the law and rule on it. They have many purposes all defined explicitly in Section 3. Do you think that had the framers intended the SC to have veto power on the legislature and executive that they would have been clear about it, like they were with the executives veto power, so that it wouldn't take 140 years for it to be understood?
Every Supreme Court in every State weighs State laws against the State Constitution, and will strike it down if it is found to be in violation. Only Supreme Courts do this. This job of Supreme Court judges, be they state or federal, is not like the job of lower court judges in either venue.
What changed under FDR was not that the judges ruled on the constitutionality of federal law, but the basis upon which they interpreted the Constitution.
There was no issue of a law being constitutional in Marbury v. Madison. It was a case of whether an incoming President could be forced to act on a previous President's promised commission. That's mechanical, not super-legislative. Like a legislator suing the whip for more time on the floor.
Marbury formally established the Court's role as the final arbiter of constitutionality.
From Marbury v. Madison: "So if a law be in opposition to the constitution; if both the law and the constitution apply to a particular case, so that the court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the constitution; or conformably to the constitution, disregarding the law; the court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty. . . "
If the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, which one to uphold is a foregone conclusion.