It sure as the constitution would only be the US sup ct. Nothing else would matter. No one else would even come close to having final jurisdiction over the exercise of that power by a chief executive. EVen the Sup Ct of the US would probably find it does have the authority to consider it.
Well here is where we could have been entertained by Scalia once more. After fifty pages of insufferable arm waving and huffing and puffing he'd have to get that bag out again and wear it.
Well in the sense that we are armed to the hilt I suppose you're right. But that's not what I had in mind. Hint: do you recall Newt Gingrich's comment about the House just ignoring the Court and everyone gasping? Well what he said isn't exactly right, but it is close. Read the Constitution, Article III, section 2, 2nd paragraph last sentence very carefully. This is what Gingrich was ineptly referring to. This little clause makes the House superior to the Court. It was very much intentional, and it has been very much overlooked ever since. The House is constitutionally the most powerful body of the Government. (Correct me if I am wrong, but I think it was Hamilton that argued for that.) Now, if they ever got their act together they could start exercising some of that power. Then, given the present make-up of the House, we might really be in trouble!
Well...now that I think about it...The courts offer opinions, whereas the House makes law. So the house can make laws that override the opinions of the court...as long as the laws are clear and leave nothing (much) left to be interpreted by the courts. Ok, nothing "new." Laws trump Supreme Court Opinions. Right?
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. I think you are pretending to understand something that is not there. This section does give the house any power over a pardon. It refers to the fact the congress could create exceptions to the supreme courts appellate jurisdiction or regulate it. However it could not grant itself power of the executives right to pardon. That would take a constitutional amendment if it could even be done..
I am not pretending anything here. I am simply stating fact. What you write is true but does not go to my point. I have taken the liberty to underline in your quote the important words in the Constitution that place the House superior to The Court in all matters except those affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party. The House, if it wishes to exercise that clause, a feature of our U.S. Constitution largely overlooked, must act pre-emptively. Marbury does not, and can not, set aside the Constitution. This often glossed over clause in our Constitution is, I am certain, what Newt Gingrich was ineptly referring to when he shocked so many.