Here is the relevance: the Supreme Court is not given judicial review in the Constitution, it has assumed that through the case of Marbury v Madison. In order for it to gain power, the Supreme Court ruled in its own favor for powers that it did not possess. In order to answer the question of "what role does the Supreme Court play?" it chose to play the role where it interprets the Constitution, that is not its role, but it does put a good deal of power in the hands of the justices. Its role is simply to apply the Constitution to the laws passed throughout the land at every level. It has the role of ultimate appeal. Should a law infringe on the rights we have as human beings and supposedly safeguarded by the Constitution, there is a stopping point for the case, an ultimate decision can be had, rather than making loop after loop at the local level, where the case may not see the light of day.
Marbury v Madison is a simple case, one which would do for the ultimate power play in American politics. Marbury simply asked for the appointment made by the president, reviewed and consented to by the senate, to be given the commission to take his office as a Justice of the Peace in Washington, DC. Madison, then Secretary of State, refused to issue the commission, letting it lie on his desk, as if it had never been acted upon. Marbury simply sought for the commission to be delivered to him so that he could take his office.
In the opinion written by Chief Justice John Marshall there is this little paragraph:
It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases must, of necessity, expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the Courts must decide on the operation of each.
which seems to give the Supreme Court the right to say what the law is. The Supreme Court gave itself, through the decision of this simple case, the right to say what the law is. The Constitution did not. Interestingly enough, if one reads the decision further a few other points are made in context and it appears far from allowing the Supreme Court to arbitrarily decide what is and is not Constitutional, it shows that what is unconstitutional is not law.
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, then, the Courts are to regard the Constitution, and the Constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the Legislature, the Constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply.
Simply put, any law passed by congress must be Constitutional or it is not law. Now, over a few hundred years the laws and judicial review have stepped into make sure that the Supreme Court has the ability to say what the law is, disregarding, or defining the individual rights out of the equation where the state finds some arbitrary role in making the law.
That a case might be brought against the Second Amendment and the state finds some value in ignoring the Second Amendment all that need to be argued is the definition of Militia, or of the People, or of what constitutes Arms, and on and on it goes right down to where one might argue against the Amendment in its entirety by defining each word to its broadest extent. The state wanted the right to infringe what it is prescribed by the Constitution as something it "must not infringe" and the race to define the right out of existence began.
So when Constitutional scholars begin their rap which begins invariably by citing every useless usurpation of power of the individual ever upheld by any jurisdiction whatsoever, I remain unimpressed. When these scholars begin with the absolutes which are written down emphatically by our founders for us to read and to know as inviolable, I will listen.
When I make the claim that this government is corrupt, it is just this corruption of language that I am speaking of. It is the cooperation between states and the Supreme Court to manipulate language and change definitions to suit their combined purposes of swaying, through the judiciary, the power from the individual and toward the state that I am speaking of. As an individual facing criminal court charges for my actions I am dependent solely on those protections which I am cognizant of only by the words written in the formation of this government. I rely on those words being true throughout history, regardless of political considerations of the officers then seated. If I am not...well Marshall said it himself:
Between these alternatives there is no middle ground. The Constitution is either a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and, like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it.
If the former part of the alternative be true, then a legislative act contrary to the Constitution is not law; if the latter part be true, then written Constitutions are absurd attempts on the part of the people to limit a power in its own nature illimitable.
I do not take the Constitution lightly, nor will I abide by any government agency that does. Where the Constitution has not been changed through the amendment process it remains in effect as the day it was written. Re-writing the Constitution based on case law and definition is illegitimate where a normal definition of the words stand clearly understandable by the average citizen. Present any of the Amendments along with state laws to the contrary to the average person and they will not understand how one could exist alongside the other. That alone demonstrates the illegitimacy and corruption of the language and the intent.
Sorry, not buying your bs.