That's at least how it works in many countries in Europe. When the President or the Government is not sure if a law follows the Constitution, they request the Supreme Court to rule on it. It's a non-binding request. The Highest Court may or may not care to investigate. The petition is to ask the Government to ask the Supreme Court to look into the matter.
Not directly, no. Article III of the US Constitution only authorizes the federal courts to hear "cases and controversies." That means so-called "advisory" opinions are not allowed by any federal court, including the Supreme Court.
Thus, as far as I know, there is no procedure for either Congress or the Executive Branch to request an opinion on the constitutionality of a law from the Supreme Court. Instead, a plaintiff with standing must file suit alleging harm by the law. That's the "case or controversy" requirement.
Federal courts is a complicated and dry topic, so this is a broad (and somewhat inaccurate) description. If you'd like to learn more, I recommend the book "Federal Jurisdiction" by Erwin Chermerinsky.
I'm a layman here, but that seems a bit awkward to me.
Let' say the Congress votes into the law and the President signs a bill suspending civil rights, let's say for blacks. The same purely hypothetical law would require to put them in the concentration camps.
Will the Supreme Court just sit on its hands wait and watch? Or am I missing something in the picture?
Once again, thanks for your time.
You're right, it is a bit awkward. And I'm sure we could debate the merits of whether such a system is a good thing as a matter of policy.
But the "case or controversy" requirement is written in the Constitution, so it is probably here to stay.