Could congress prevent SCOTUS from invalidating laws?

[Northern_Piper]

Came across another article, this time from 1953, where the author makes the point that there were historical antecedents for judicial review in England, and also that the issue was debated both at Philadelphia and in the ratifying conventions, notably Virginia’s, where Marshall, amongst others, spoke in favour of the doctrine: J.R. Saylor, “Judicial Review Prior to Marbury v. Madison” (1953), 7 SMU Law Review 88.

147636958.pdf

He gives the quotation from Madison which I mentioned earlier, about the need for ratification by state conventions to establish the Constitution as the supreme law:

… the difference between a system founded on the people to be the true
difference between a league or treaty, and a constitution. The former, in
point of moral obligation, might be as inviolate as the latter. In point
of political operation, there were two important distinctions in favor
of the latter. First, a law violating a treaty ratified by a preexisting
law might be respected by the judges as a law, though an unwise or
perfidious one. A law violating a constitution established by the people
themselves would be considered by the judges as null and void.