I need some help with civics

[Warriorbird]

The Supreme Court's power of judicial review of constitutionality is not its "one job and one job only." It is only one part. It has appellate jurisdiction over the rest of the federal courts, which hear all kinds of cases that don't implicate judicial review of legislative or executive actions. It even has original (i.e., trial-level) jurisdiction over certain kinds of matters (states suing other states, for instance).

All sorts of useful things that their beloved Articles did not have.

[ClydeR]

Definitions are the source of most controversy in the world today. This discussion is really about the meaning of the word "law." When most people use the word "law," they mean laws passed by Congress and signed by the President, just like in the Schoolhouse Rock song. A better word for laws passed by Congress would be "statutes." Or to say it another way, laws passed by Congress are "statutory law" or "legislation."

But statutory law is not the only kind of law. When a court interprets a statute, then the court's interpretation becomes a precedent, which must be followed by all lower courts in interpreting the same law. The court's interpretation of the statute becomes part of the law. Why must courts interpret statutes at all? Because Congress writes laws that are unclear. Before the end of 2015, the Supreme Court will decide the unclear meaning of some words written by Congress as part of Obamacare. When the court rules, its ruling will be law.

Finally, there is executive law. The President's authority to create law comes from his enumerated powers in the Constitution and, more often, from statute. Almost every major piece of modern legislation includes a few sentences allowing or directing the President or one of his cabinet members to prepare regulations providing additional details for the administration of the statute. Those regulations are law. The Obamacare statute directed the IRS to enact regulations to implement tax subsidies on the insurance exchanges, and the Obamacare case that the Supreme Court will decide before the end of next year is actually about whether or not regulations enacted by the IRS were inconsistent with the regulation-making authority granted to the IRS by statutory law. Courts show deference toward regulations enacted by the executive branch, including the IRS, when statutory law gives the executive branch specific authority to regulate, but not unlimited deference. That's what the Obamacare case should be about. Exciting, isn't it?

You're welcome.