This question pertains to Marbury v. Madison. I'm a bit unsure as to why SCOTUS ruled the way it did.
The Judiciary Act of 1789 (Section 13):
The act to establish the judicial courts of the United States authorizes the Supreme Court "to issue writs of mandamus, in cases warranted by the principles and usages of law, to any courts appointed, or persons holding office, under the authority of the United States."
Article III of Constitution, Section. 2
...In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
Interpretation 1: I think the most likely reason that Marshall's Supreme Court overturned the Judiciary Act of 1789(Section 13) was because the Judiciary Act wasn't an amendment. In that case though, Article III, Section. 2 doesn't explicitly state "amendment" but instead says "regulation." I would think the Judiciary Act qualifies as an exception which is a regulation that Congress has made, so I am confused.
Interpretation 2: The bolded and italicized part of Article III just means that SCOTUS has the power to enforce Congressional legislation, just with appellate jurisdiction and written in non-colloquial language.
As I'm writing this question, the more I can see that Marshall's Court was siding with Interpretation 2. However, I still can't wrap my head around the "exceptions" part of Article III. What does the Constitution mean here?
EDIT: The Marshall court declared Marbury was not able to have his commission as a judge because the Supreme Court didn't have original jurisdiction in issuing writs of mandamus, and Marbury's case was taken directly to the Supreme Court, rather than a lower court. But, my main question remains, was that the "correct" way to interpret the Constitution? I'm not sure why my first interpretation is wrong.