Can anyone explain….how a random group of 'selected' US Senators, who may or may not be/or have been attorneys, have any right whatsoever to have the final say in interpreting and changing a US Constitutional issue, by simply taking a vote based on their belief system, like the US Senate did yesterday (09 Feb 21) creating a prejudicial precedent??? 'Selected' US Senators, actually voted to create a final interpretation on a US Constitutional issue without the Supreme Court (or any court of law) …and after they've actually taken an oath to support the US Constitution?

"The U.S. Supreme Court resolves disputes involving constitutional issues. Since its landmark ruling in the 1803 case of Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court has, through the process of judicial review, acted as the ultimate interpreter of the Constitution. Decisions of the Supreme Court become a permanent part of constitutional law and are thus binding on the parties involved, as well as the federal and state governments and the people."

Source: https://www.thoughtco.com/constitutional-law-4767074

"ARTICLE VI:….Furthermore, all federal, state, and local officials must take an oath to support the Constitution. This means that state governments and officials CANNOT take actions or pass laws that interfere with the Constitution, laws passed by Congress, or treaties."

Source: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/constitutional_law

If we are no longer operating under the US Constitution, as appears to be the case by the example set for us yesterday, could someone let us know? That changes everything….everything.