> But the only way to properly do that is a constitutional amendment. A constitutional amendment make it permanent, but Congress never actually lost control. T

> But the only way to properly do that is a constitutional amendment. A constitutional amendment make it permanent, but Congress never actually lost control. They always had the power - and still do - amend, restrain, clarify their own laws. > Didn't it just create a a king/dictator? Wouldn't that be unconstitutional? In a scenario with a packed Supreme Court of "yes men" there are no bounds to what could happen, so why bother with the thought experiment? In your example, the constitution is already worthless.