> 1. The "major questions doctrine". This is simply the idea that if the impact of legislation that is passed by Congress and signed by the president is "large" then the Supreme Court gets to overrule the other two branches of government because they want to. Where is that in the Constitution?

That is a wildly inaccurate take on the "major questions doctrine". You are actually describing SCOTUS power to determine if laws are "constitutional", which was decided (by SCOTUS) in 1803 (Marbury v. Madison).

2 and 3 are well-made points.

It might be a fair-enough interpretation. For major issues, what's ambiguously said (or unsaid) by Congress can be specifically said (or unsaid) by the Courts.

Point #2 is related, as it also connected to a requirement to interpret "intent", which is a tricky thing even at the best of times.

As for point #3, I can't comment. I don't quite understand Roberts' logic about official vs. discretionary, but I feel it has something to do with original framers' intent also.

"Constitutional" here means, in the court's own words, "common sense" now [1]:

> The doctrine was articulated as a paradigm in FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. (2000), which advised "common sense" in assessing whether Congress intended to delegate broad regulatory powers

Put another way, the court is simply deciding on their own if the other two branches really maent what they'd written into law. Put another way, it's just vibes.

That's not to say there can't be confusing, ambiguous or even contradictory legislative language. As an aside, we had Congress (under both parties) intentionally write ambiguous language knowing federal agencies would interpret it. It was a known consequence. I am, of course, referring to Chevron deference.

Anyway, so the court invented a "common sense" principle and, as they always do in a power grab, they expanded their own principle under Roberts:

> It was applied in Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA (2014) and King v. Burwell (2015), with Chief Justice John Roberts writing for the majority in the latter.[2] The Court first explicitly called it the "major questions doctrine" in West Virginia v. EPA (2022), where it held that agencies must point to "clear congressional authorization" for the power asserted in "extraordinary cases"

The Roberts court then went on to use this subjective idea of "clear Congressional authorization" as strike down Covid mandates, student loan forgiveness, the power of the EPA and a bunch of other very political ends. Weird.

And once again, none of this invokes any Constitutional protection or language at all.

Or put yet another way, the Supreme Court has two roles: constitutional interpretation and statutory interpretation. The second one is being the final court of review for any federal or state case. This is a duty they gave themselves (ie Marbury v Madison). So the court gave themselves the authority to review any court decision and then expanded that to use "common sense" as a test for overwriting the will of Congress and the President.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_questions_doctrine