Marbury really isn't the issue.
Marbury actually makes sense. Is the constitution a superior statute / codification to congressional legislation? Yes.

Is it a courts proper role to interpret statutes? Yes.

Is the court a branch created by the constitution? Yes.

Is it the constitutional function of the court to act as a court? Yes.

Thus, the court is empowered to interpret the constitution.

Further, Marbury wasn't the origin of your rule under US law. Chisholm v. Georgia was. Marbury just explained it in greater detail.

Further, there's an exception to the rule. See Am 14, s5. Granting congress the power to interpret Am. 14.