"Our founders never expected the court to wield this amount of power."
Precisely. The courts were intended to settle those few and far between issues that are
incapable of being resolved by the normal channels of governance described in the Constitution while simultaneously being so important they cannot be ignored (reintegrating rebellious states into the nation probably falls under that. Declaring a victor as impartially as possible during an electoral schism where neither side concedes after much recounting and acrimony, the SCOTUS is probably the best option there is. Imposing wheat production regulations on a random farmer, probably not so much
)
But, as you so saliently stated, the courts have amassed powers that congress and the executive have "punted" over the years. A legislative issue too controversial or unpopular? Let the courts decide it. Issue has too many complicated implications and involved parties to sort out an Us v. Them easily? Let the courts throw the chips where they may.
And now we have enforcement agents deciding which laws to enforce and how (ceding of court authority), executives commanding massive and unassailable budgets (ceding of congressional authority), congresses passing laws simply to see if they'll stick (ceding of court authority), court rulings that change the meaning of recently passed legislation instead of affirming or denying it (ceding of congressional authority), and secret courts and rulings (ceding of court authority/legitimacy)
"What elevates actions to the level of "civil disobedience?" Is it the public, open nature? The strategic nature? The martyric nature?"
The advocacy. I'm pretty sure every burnt draft card "counted" more in the public's eye than every brat who fled to Canada
. Effective advocacy involves strategy, publicity, and if necessary, sacrifice. Mere non-compliance is lawlessness, which, while a selling point for demonstrating a law's pointlessness, doesn't accomplish anything in and of itself to get the law repealed. Lot's of laws requiring ducks to wear pants remain on the books because no one advocated to have them repealed, even though there is no enforcement. Remember that gun laws historically were/are aggressively enforced against blacks, and the modern restrictions felt by pale faces like me here in Texas are a relatively new occurrence. Leaving bad, unenforced laws on the books can only harm you in the end, and only advocacy can accomplish their repeal.
TCB