Alright but why would the Dem stornghold of the south decide not to back FDR?
For the same reason the "Solid" South provided FDR's only challengers
within the Democratic Party. For the same reason the support of the "Solid" South was so shallow that it could, and did, evaporate and southern lawmakers needed to be coddled continuously.
Race.
The South didn't vote for FDR because he was a Democrat. The South voted for FDR because he
wasn't a Republican.
If you're going to examine how FDR could have become a dictator of the "emergency only" kind, you're going to have to understand US politics.
FDR sought emergency powers like that in a war, so they are overtly broad. Like many acts in WWI which few found illegal due to the national crisis.
And then were quietly scrapped once the war was won. What are going to happen to FDR's emergency powers once the height of the crisis is over, as it was, by late '33 and early '34? They're going to be legislated away, legally challenged, or simply ignored.
Will such a "Mayfly" dictatorship meets your needs?
As to the SCOTUS as stated before, without an actual law in front of us to look at how FDR may have gained dictator powers, there is no point outside of speculation as to it being legal.
Again, you're failing to understand the point being made. Let me use the NRA again as an example.
That legislation passed in June of '33, the regulations it authorized were drawn up by late '33, saw enforcement by early '34, and were first legal challenges appeared at that time. As the first cases worked their way up through the appeals process, many other cases were being brought and some moved even faster than the others. The many active cases produced a legal limbo and sections of the NRA never were actually enforced to any great deal.
The many cases produced "victories" and "defeats" for the Act but, because each case was judged on it's own merits, none had yet touched upon the overall constitutionality of the Act itself. The DOJ actually sought out cases looking for one that would do so and, in April of '34, found one involving kosher poultry of all things.
That was the case which overturned the Act in 1935 a few weeks before it was due to expire anyway. The Act was so disliked
at the time that Congress, far from being the mindless rubber stamp you assume it to be during this period, wasn't even contemplating renewing the Act despite heavy pressure from the Administration.
Waving off the eventual SCOTUS decision on the Act, ignores the many other legal rulings which had already delayed or set aside large portions of the Act's regulatory powers. Thanks to legal challenges which began immediately once the Act took effect, the NRA was never fully implemented in the manner FDR and his administration felt was necessary.
The Act is not the model of emergency dictatorial powers you believe it to be and the "delay" in the SCOTUS ruling on the Act as a whole does not mean the Act was in full force during it's brief existence.
You're going to have to find some way else to convince us. The immediate and successful challenges to his administration's policies means that FDR's support was no where near as solid or broad as you'd like to assume. And, with nearly 40% of the electorate voting for the incumbent who had almost passively presided over the onset of the Great Depression, the people of the time did view the crisis to be as deep or morale sapping as you'd like to assume.