Are you suggesting that Congress has passed a law declaring someone other than the supreme court to be a final arbiter of the constitution?

Are you claiming that they even can?

If you’re not making the former, your point is, at best, an interesting hypothetical. Like, “what would chairs look like if our knees bent the other way?”. Interesting, but ultimately irrelevant.

The other person commenting linked this, which you subsequently ignored

No. I read it. I found no examples mentioned that contradicted the viewpoint I have presented.

For example:

One view, espoused by Thomas Jefferson, among others, is that each of the three branches of government may interpret the Constitution when it relates to the performance of the branch’s own functions.

That is perfectly consistent with my viewpoint, and contradicts the other person’s argument that the court oversteps its bounds.

The court’s function is to resolve “cases”. Where two parties come to a disagreement, the court is, indeed, the final arbiter of that disagreement. Where that disagreement is related to constitutionality, the court is requested and required to provide a ruling. That is their job.

Similarly, when he vetoed the reauthorization of the Bank of the United States, President Andrew Jackson argued that the President was the final interpreter of the Constitution for executive functions.

Again, not a problem, until there is a conflict between the executive branch and someone else: where a case arises between the executive branch and another party, the court is specifically empowered to resolve that case. Until such a conflict arises, the executive branch is, indeed, empowered to interpret the constitution. But, once that “case” has arisen, Article III puts the ball in the courts.

For example, in Nixon v. United States, the Court held that the Constitution gave the Senate alone the power to determine whether it had properly “tried” an impeachment.

That very ruling is an example of the court interpreting the constitution at the behest of the parties to a “case”. The court would have no ability to respond to address that issue without the parties disagreeing on who was constitutionally empowered to determine what was “proper”. If everyone has agreed that the Senate was charged with that duty, the courts don’t get involved in the interpretation. If everyone agreed the president, or a magic eight ball was charged with that duty, the courts don’t get involved because no case has arisen.

On and on, the essay repeatedly tried to show that there was some inherent problem with the judicial branch doing exactly what Article III empowered it to do: to hear cases. The essay doesn’t seem to support the other person’s initial claims about the court taking powers it wasn’t assigned. But, despite repeated queries, I could get no further context for their claim other than an essay that doesnt support such a claim.

I still can’t get you to challenge my own understanding, other than to point at the same essay that doesn’t seem to support your position, nor can I get any information from you about what your position actually is.

Address some part of your claims that Article III doesn’t mean what it says on the tin. Show me what you are talking about and how it differs from my own understanding.

Civil tongue, please.

It seems to me that any disagreement as to who should be interpreting the constitution would be a “[Case], in Law and Equity, arising under [the] Constitution, the Laws of the United States…”

Sections 1 and 2 do, indeed, empower someone to address such a case, such a disagreement: the “inferior courts” and the “Supreme court”.

If you have no disagreement, you can let your HOA or the local parks and rec department interpret the constitution for you. It’s only when you have a disagreement that anyone cares who has that power, and in such cases, Section 2 says that SCOTUS has jurisdiction to rule on that case.