Concepts are hard.
The one concept I find seems to be really hard for some is basic reading and understanding.
The Supreme Courts, at both state and Federal level, have the stated purpose (among others) to hear and rule on matters of constitutionality of laws. That includes laws that are illegal based on other laws -- such as the laws governing the rights of the people to transparency in government (Sunshine laws).
There are MANY papers and articles available that discuss how the oath law makers take -- to adhere to and uphold the state and US Constitutions -- used to be enough to ensure unconstitutional laws are not passed, unless completely in error.
Today, however, lawmakers have abandoned their oaths of office by adopting the tactic that they can pass laws that skirt or outright violate the Constitutions their interpretation of them. They will simply wait to see if anyone ever challenges the law on those grounds.
Therefore, expecting lawmakers to do what's right -- follow the Constitutions -- is not happening.
When there is a question on the Constitutionality (i.e. legality) of a law, it is the JOB of the Supreme Court to hear and rule on that question. They aren't "making law." They are interpreting the supreme law of the land (Constitutions) and applying it to the law being questioned.
Side note: PA just gave gun owners a big win by ruing that anyone who believes their civil rights are being violated by an existing law can sue over its constitutionality WITHOUT having to prove standing. Before, you had to have been charged with, or somehow injured by, that law to have standing. Now, you are deemed to have standing based on the fact the law injures you by preventing you from fully exercising your right.