Going back...

There was no such thing as a constitutional court at the founding.
— Hanover

Article three, section two: "The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution..." — Banno

Shrug.

I view it as a declaration of general subject matter jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, meaning the Court is unlimited in the sorts of cases it can hear. — Hanover

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make. Art. 3 sec. 2.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make. Art. 3 sec. 2. — tim wood

Yes, thanks for this cite, which clarifies my confusion about why the Court is in most events an appellate court. These are the "exceptions" referenced when the Court can have original jurisdiction:
https://www.thoughtco.com/original-jurisdiction-of-us-supreme-court-4114269.

This does not, in the event someone might suggest otherwise, have any bearing on whether the Court is a constitutional one or not, but again speaks to the question of how and when it obtains jurisdiction.

Shrug. — Banno

Answer this specific question:

If Article 3, Section 2 of the US Constitution creates the power for the Supreme Court to review the constitutionality of statutes passed by Congress, why isn't it mentioned anywhere in Marbury v. Madison?

If Article 3, Section 2 of the US Constitution creates the power for the Supreme Court to review the constitutionality of statutes passed by Congress, why isn't it mentioned anywhere in Marbury v. Madison? — Hanover

It is. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/5/137

120
The constitution vests the whole judicial power of the United States in one supreme court, and such inferior courts as congress shall, from time to time, ordain and establish. This power is expressly extended to all cases arising under the laws of the United States; and consequently, in some form, may be exercised over the present case; because the right claimed is given by a law of the United States.

121
In the distribution of this power it is declared that 'the supreme court shall have original jurisdiction in all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be a party. In all other cases, the supreme court shall have appellate jurisdiction.'

And then later, with respect to judicial review:

147
The judicial power of the United States is extended to all cases arising under the constitution.

148
Could it be the intention of those who gave this power, to say that, in using it, the constitution should not be looked into? That a case arising under the constitution should be decided without examining the instrument under which it arises?

149
This is too extravagant to be maintained.

150
In some cases then, the constitution must be looked into by the judges. And if they can open it at all, what part of it are they forbidden to read, or to obey?

151
There are many other parts of the constitution which serve to illustrate this subject.

...

157
From these and many other selections which might be made, it is apparent, that the framers of the constitution contemplated that instrument as a rule for the government of courts, as well as of the legislature.

...

163
Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.

Cheers.

Answer this specific question: — Hanover

Given the wording of the constitution, how could they have deemed otherwise? — Banno

Seems to me you are left defending a lost cause.

It would be entirely consistent With the US Constitution for it to contain a contradiction? Ok — Banno

Well... Duh? It wasn't written by infallible beings.

RIP Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg :flower: :death: :flower:

She lived a full life, however many her struggles. Few can say that.

America, I weep for you.

The Quiet 2013 Lunch That Could Have Altered Supreme Court History: President Obama met with Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, hinting at retirement.

Mr. Obama had asked his White House counsel, Kathryn Ruemmler, to set up the lunch so he could build a closer rapport with the justice, according to two people briefed on the conversation. Treading cautiously, he did not directly bring up the subject of retirement to Justice Ginsburg, at 80 the Supreme Court’s oldest member and a two-time cancer patient.

He did, however, raise the looming 2014 midterm elections and how Democrats might lose control of the Senate. Implicit in that conversation was the concern motivating his lunch invitation — the possibility that if the Senate flipped, he would lose a chance to appoint a younger, liberal judge who could hold on to the seat for decades.

But the effort did not work. Justice Ginsburg left Mr. Obama with the clear impression that she was committed to continuing her work on the court, according to those briefed.

:rage: