As I understand Marbury v. Madison, I do appreciate @IsailedawayfromFR's concerns about some of the jurisdiction issues involved in judicial review by any of the federal courts. The federal courts--from top to bottom--have claimed jurisdiction over practically anything that could conceivably be brought to them at the "federal level" (?)--and that annoys me bigly. But I believe that the SCOTUS's judicial review of purely and inarguably Constitutional issues was intended by our Framers, even if they didn't specify this in the Constitution.
In short, I can't believe that the Supreme Court should be shut out of Constitutional squabbles. We definitely need a supreme arbiter in purely Constitutional fights. The Framers' creation of a Supreme Court is ultimately recognizing this.
Considring that one of SCOTUS's duties is to settle disputes between the States and the Federal Government, some framework would be necessary to consistently settle such disputes. The Constitution would be the relevant compact by which to address such grievances. In the instance where The People believed the Government had overstepped its bounds, whether through legislation or executive fiat, the SCOTUS provides the venue to determine if such grievances are valid, again in terms of the protections and limitations inherent in the Constitution. The court, in turn, can be overruled by the legislature, by Statute or Amendment. Thus the power has a check, a balance.
Unfortunately, the SCOTUS has been finding "rights" neither enumerated nor implied, and in at least one case, has rewritten law in contrast to its stated intent (the penalty clause of the ACA), and used that rewritten version to rule the law Constitutional. That is improper, and should be stopped.
Equally unfortunately, the Legislature lacks the motivation to repeal the ACA, and is divided on the issue of protecting human life, which it could do by passing legislation explicitly and legally defining when life begins, bringing the unborn under the penumbra of Constitutional protection.
Unless and until someone brings a case before the court (and the Court grants cert) that specifically addresses these issues, there can be no relief through the Court, and even then, that is not a sure thing.
The system is designed to be cumbersome, in that the various branches can dispute the actions of the others. That's what checks and balances are all about. Ideally, only universally acceptable actions or statutes would stand. In practice, that falls short of the mark.
The Colorado case, though, is an example of the State court holding the Legislature to a Constitutional Mandate, a procedure spelled out in the State Constitution, which the legislature sought to circumvent.
That is precisely the sort of thing the court is supposed to do.