What should be evident is that if the law doesn't pass, it really isn't that necessary and not favored heavily enough by enough people.
In fantasy, sure. In reality, there are political forces much greater than what people favor. There are countless polls, not only about particular issues where the public and the Congress are tragically out of step, but where voters say they don't think either party represents them. (Happy to provide links if you care and doubt it... I have done a ton of research on this, but I won't bother unless the conversation remains relatively engaging.) Voters simply don't have much leverage.
If a congressman refuses to vote in favor of a thing that his or her electorate feels is critical, he will be removed upon the next election.
Even in fantasy, this would be unlikely. Voters often compromise on things they consider critical, in order to protect other things they consider critical.
If his electorate is so intellectually bankrupt (as oh so many Americans are), then they will leave that person in Congress to continue failing to do things that are critical. The former is a check on the system; those failing to represent those who elected him is removed. The latter is not a symptom of dysfunction in Congress. It's a symptom of the dysfunction of the voters.
This is cartoonishly simplistic. Suppose, for example, a person finds climate change critical. The vast majority of voters have no credible option available to express this, even if they were willing to compromise other critical issues. Organizing credible options is a task beyond the vast majority of citizens' means; organizing it over time requires far more political acumen than your "if you don't like it vote differently" picture, but rather a world class marketing effort with essentially no misstep. This is beyond the reach of the voting public as a whole. And even if it could be mustered, it would almost certainly come at the cost of other critical issues.
We were never supposed to have a government that built an ever-growing catalogue of all things we citizens cannot do. They were never intended to prevent us from being offended, or uncomfortable. They were meant to defend our borders, settle disputes between states, and very little else. They (and the plethora of activists) have taken it upon themselves to try to govern how we think, act, drive, read, are entertained, eat, sleep, breath... They have changed the foundation of our system from innocent until proven guilty at which time you'll be punished, to attempting to prevent us from ever becoming guilty by forcing the behavior they desire.
I tried to respond to the previous bits in good faith, despite realizing this was coming. I hope you'll agree that I made a reasonable effort there. But this... most of what you're describing is first a caricature of the Constitution and second a caricature of liberalism. Your efforts to describe a constitutional ideal are undermined by this. There is real over-regulation, but it is mostly a product of powerful business interests.
There is an actual need for regulation, though. I need to be sure that my drinking water isn't dangerous. I need to be sure I can make an educated decision about my nutrition and health. I need to be sure that if a neighbor in my apartment building starts a fire, I have an otherwise unobstructed path out of the building. I need to be sure that my employer will actually produce a valid check for the amount I was promised in exchange for my labor. Quoth the Constitution: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." I considered adding emphasis, but I would have emphasized nearly the entire quote.