You want to give them the power, then you want to take it away when they disagree with your interpretation. (I would likely agree with you;^)
Unfortunately, giving any feds the authority to interpret law is too much power. Its the same as expecting a federal judge to fairly decide a disagreement between the feds and an individual. Letting them judge when they are being challenged is naive. They have too much self interest in the outcome to judge fairly.

They have lowered themselves by making federal law against the constitution.

I have The Constitution In Exile and mostly agree with it. However, I believe the Supreme Court's power to rule laws unconstitutional is both authorized and necessary, even if the Court since the New Deal has been much too reluctant to use it.

We should, however, take away from the Court its power to make nonsensical rulings about the meaning of important words and phrases, as (for instance) "interstate commerce" was reinterpreted in Wickard v. Filburn to include all kinds of behavior that are neither interstate nor commerce. But I don't know how we might either overturn that decision or purge the Court of people who agree with it, given that both Congress and the general public (if given recall power in the future) are unlikely to go along with changing it back.

Thanks for the link...hadn't heard nor read J.A.N. on this subject

Not according to Judge Andrew Napolitano's book
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2006/08/t...

That power was stolen from the people by the court in the 19th century just like the power of jury nullification has been stolen by federal judges.

Ok, but isn't the unsurpreme court there to decide challenges to the constitutionality of a states law?

Here is a review that explains how the court looted the power from the people:
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2006/08/t...

This makes sense. The feds currently force communities to take immigrants that they do not want and can't assimilate. Sometimes this is another method to gerrymander districts. Recent headline example is Amarillo TX. State and local government are more responsive to their residents and should be able to make such decisions.

Ever since the Supreme Court has become politicized beyond rationality, their usefulness has dissipated to that of a news commentator. Their purpose, and their ONLY purpose is to interpret the Constitution as it applies to the matter at hand They have often strayed so far from this that it makes their decisions relevant only because they have the power to make, change, or destroy laws.

By the states as it was done before the Marshall court (and later ones) took control of power they were never granted. I prefer states rights which allows possibility of more than one outcome so that there are competitive ideas tried instead of the feds dictating what makes them stronger while destroying liberty and free markets.
The constitution says nothing about the power of the court to dictate constitutionality and the states once ignored the dictatorial "judgement" of those unelected lifetime bureaucrats.

Good Point.
I thought of responding, but changed my mind, that NO ONE has the right to enslave another...do we not have the right and perhaps the responsibility to stand up to that?

And you want constitutionality to be decided by whom? Presidents, like Lincoln? Or Congress under FDR?

I don't believe it has,. However, other federal judges have been impeached and convicted.

Already true in theory. Congress can impeach members of the Supreme Court. I don't think it's ever happened.

Something the convention of states should consider.

Or at least no guarantee of term length...behave and maybe you'll stay awhile.

Certainly not enough of them, that is true.

the members of the congress have no interest in the usa just like the pres other than to take it down!

Everything they want to do is bad. Gridlock is good.

The Constitution expressly spells out that the pay of judges, and of the President, cannot be changed during their terms of office. This was done precisely in order to prevent Congress from bullying the other branches and thus defeating the separation of powers.

If courts are striking down immigration laws, then write those laws to comply with the Constitution. Or amend the Constitution to allow them.

While we're at it, the Constitution should be amended to fix the size of the Supreme Court so nobody can "pack" it.

Term limits for the Supremes.

Congress definitely needs to start wielding and defending its own power. Instead, they've authorized agencies under the Executive Branch to deal with most things. They have created and continue to perpetuate their own nemesis, despite having the tools with which to end their own slavery - power of the purse.

The congress needs to do something, anything to give us an indication that they the members are actually alive.

Lincoln is to blame.
The dictator and war criminal destroyed states rights and murdered 600,000 Americans in his unneeded, traitorous war against individual liberty.
Prior to that time state governments ignored the politically appointed idiots on the supreme court as they should have. The court was never given power to decide constitutionality. They looted it.

I perish to think of it...my stomach churns already.