Oh, just pointing out that quite eminent historical personages had different opinions on the merits of judicial review, and that similar views still exist today, although they're in a minority. I think people are inclined to assume that The Way Things Are is much the same as How They're Supposed To Be, when in fact the country might have developed quite differently very easily, despite having started from the same constitutional beginning.
I've re-read your earlier post and I have to say that any view that requires the supreme court to enact laws they find outside the scope of the constitution is just baffling and tautologically wrong.
Marbury v. Madison didn't establish a power, it clarified the obvious. If the law oversteps the bounds of the constitution the court has no power to enforce it - their and congress' own power being derived from the constitution. Nobody can be ordered by law to do something beyond the scope of law.
But above and beyond that, "The judicial power of the United States shall be vested in [the supreme court]" is pretty clear - congress passes laws and the courts enforce them. If a single entity was desired, it'd have been specified.
It doesn't mean the SC is the final arbiter of constitutionality, the people are, but they certainly have the ability and duty to say no.
I don't subscribe to the view that the Supreme Court has to allow laws dramatically outside the constitution to stand; I said there exists such a school of thought with some influential members, whether I agree or not. The SC can't enact laws, that's what Congress does.
The Executive branch enforces the laws, per article II section 3 of the Constutition. The Judicial branch adjudicates disputes, it does not enforce anything.
The SC is the final arbiter of constitutionality - as Justice Robert Jackson said, it's not final because it's the SC, it's the SC because it's final.
