The "someone must decide" argument fundamentally misunderstands how constitutional democracy works. Constitutional courts don't freely "decide what the law is"

The "someone must decide" argument fundamentally misunderstands how constitutional democracy works. Constitutional courts don't freely "decide what the law is" - they interpret frameworks explicitly created and amendable through democratic processes. The U.S. Constitution wasn't handed down by philosopher kings - it was debated, voted on, and ratified by elected representatives. Its amendments reflect centuries of democratic evolution. Your position creates a false choice between unconstrained judicial power and unconstrained majority power. Real constitutional democracies have multiple checks and balances: Courts interpret within boundaries set by elected bodies. Legislatures can amend constitutions. Voters can change both. No single group becomes "philosopher kings." The "tightly cabined" standard you propose would paradoxically require exactly the kind of unaccountable super-authority you claim to oppose. Who would decide what counts as "tight" enough? Who would enforce those limits? Your solution creates the very problem you're trying to solve. Constitutional democracy isn't about putting anyone "above democracy" - it's about creating a stable system where democracy can actually function long-term. Without protected rights and independent courts, democracy quickly becomes nothing more than temporary tyranny of 50%+1. The history of successful democracies versus failed ones proves this isn't theoretical. Which systems have maintained stable democratic transitions of power over generations? The ones with strong constitutional frameworks and independent courts.