You are correct, but Marbury v Madison is the toothpaste that, absent a Constitutional Convention, will never go back in the tube. In the 19th Century the power was used rarely, compared to today, and not always wisely, i e Dred Scott. In our time the calendar is filled with opportunities to remake the Constitution.
Except that's not what Marbury v Madison actually says; what it says is (a) the courts have to be able to read/apply [ie interpret] the Constitution, and (b) anything contrary to the Constitution is void.
The courts have reinterpreted (a) to mean that they can re-interpret the Constitution as they see fit, adding and removing penumbras and emanations
at will, because [IMO] (a) isn't really written well; Marbury v Madison would be much better if it only said (b).
In the 19th Century the power was used rarely, compared to today, and not always wisely, i e Dred Scott. In our time the calendar is filled with opportunities to remake the Constitution.
Dred Scot wasn't even Marbury v Madison interpretive power; it was the Supreme Court essentially saying A slave, even if freed, can never become a Citizen
(form wikipedia: finding that neither he nor any other person of African ancestry could claim citizenship in the United States
), which made a third class of person in the States: Citizen, Slave, and non-citizen native owing allegiance to no other State
. (The last state essentially being the man-without-a-country problem.)