[Brilliant]

No. A dictator is someone who controls EVERYTHING. We're just talking about one thing here. If you don't have a final authority on what the Constition means, then you have chaos. In the end, the Constitution has no meaning at all.

Of course, the present situation, with judicial activists interpreting the Constitution whatever way they please has also resulted in a Constitution with no meaning. What we need to do is go back to the situation we had until approximately the 50's, where the Supreme Court was the final authority on what the Constitution meant, but the Justices on the Supreme Court viewed themselves as bound by the language of the Constitution, and did not view themselves as exercising power to change things.

[UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide]

If you don't have a final authority on what the Constition means, then you have chaos. In the end, the Constitution has no meaning at all........

Of course, the present situation, with judicial activists interpreting the Constitution whatever way they please has also resulted in a Constitution with no meaning.

Do you think through what you write or was the contradiction of yourself intentional. Having no final authority does not mean chaos. It means you don't force an answer until there is consensus. The proper way to do that is keep the three branches of government going around with each other until there is agreement. When you define a system you cannot choose or know who will be administering it in the future. Therefore you must build it to withstand men. Federalist #78 clearly implied that the executive and its police power is not a rubber stamp for judges. And Marbury v. Madison says EXACTLY THE SAME THING. The problem is that everybody pays attention to the nullification of Congress but ignores the admission that the Court could not order the President to do anything. If that second part were still recognized there would be no problem.