I am fine with a “dictator” who can only say No. That can only impose inaction of his and only his government. Such a man is of course not a dictator by any traditional understanding.
For inaction is not a usurpation, but a failure to render services either lawfully authorized such as those mentioned in the Constitution, or unlawfully usurped such as those not mentioned in the Constitution.
Either way failure to render is not a usurpation but rather an end to usurpation and a failure to provide contracted service.
I can live with that risk just as we already live with that risk in regard to the Federal Employees in black robes, the House, the senate, and of course where our States are involved them as well.
The design of our system is to insure freedom not government services. that means Our system came built with numerous redundant fail-safe mechanics designed to bring it to a stop rather than seriously injure our liberty with a distributive “service” (IE: act).
Dictators are dictators largely because nobody can stop their acts. Lots of people can stop Obama’s act here, they simply can’t make him act.
I am not. A bad law, enforced consistently, will often end up doing less damage than a bad law enforced at the whim of an evil person. Among other things, if enforcing a bad law consistently would do too much damage, the law is apt to be repealed. By contrast, a bad law which almost nobody obeys can be a nasty tool in the hands of a dictator who can exempt his favored groups while enforcing the law against his enemies.