Is That Really What the Founding Fathers Wanted?

We often hear Republicans making bold statements about the views of the founding fathers. After the Hodges v Oberfell court case (the case that legalized gay marriage) we heard Republicans yell about these "9 unelected lawyers in robes" and how, "the founding fathers never intended for the supreme court to make decisions like this". Everytime Obama issues an executive order you hear about how, "Emperor Obama is trying to rule as a tyrant", and the founding fathers meant for the system to work through congress. Plus, we hear all the time about how this or that is unconstitutional. So, how do the Republicans get this special insight into the minds of the founding fathers, that the rest of us don't get? Well, the thing is. They don't.
To begin, lets start with Hodges v Oberfell and criticism of the supreme court. In the third article of the constitution, it is stated that the supreme court will be comprised of judges appointed by the president and approved by congress. These unelected judges will serve as long as they'd like under good behavior. These judges were to be unelected to keep them free from playing politics to get votes. Judges are suppose to be free from political motives, and make decisions based on their views rather than the voters views. Alexander Hamilton wrote about this in multiple federalist essays during the process of ratifying the constitution. During Thomas Jefferson's presidency, in 1803, the Marbury v Madison decision was made, giving the supreme court the power of judicial review, and a few years later, McCulloch v Maryland (1819) gave the federal government power over the laws of state governments. All of this put together makes the Hodges v Oberfell decision 100% constitutional, and gives it precedent over any law regarding marriage in any state. Anything Republicans have to say about it is purely emotionally driven and a bunch of hot air.
Next, the problem of executive orders, and "Emperor Obama". This one I often see on facebook where conservatives post pictures about how many executive orders Obama has issued, and then compare him to Joseph Stalin, or some other historical dictator. A couple of reasons why this is unfounded. First, Obama has issued less executive orders than both Bush's, or Reagan. They were never called tyrants or dictators now were they? (Well, George w. Was but come on) Executive orders are essentially how the president interprets a particular law and seeks to enforce it. It is his job to issue executive orders. In fact, other than veto power, it is just about the only direct power the president has over the country. An executive order cites an already existent law that was passed by congress, and declares how the president sees to properly enforce or enact the law. These executive orders can be reviewed by the supreme court who can then rule them unconstitutional if they over step the power the president has, or are found to be unreasonable interpretations of the law cited. Therefore, even with executive orders, Obama could not give himself dictatorial power over the nation.
We hear all too often about the unconstitutionality of laws or regulations, yet when held up to scrutiny, these cries often do not hold up. The key is to look beyond the rhetoric. Inform yourself about the issues and decide for yourself.