Instead of Removing Trump From Power, Remove Power From the Presidency

Now that Democrats have failed in their attempt to remove the president from power, it's worth asking why they haven't seriously considered the reverse: removing power from the president.
We have seen, over the 33 months since Donald Trump took the unusual step of firing FBI Director James B. Comey, any number of behavior-specific explanations for why the 45th president must go: For coordinating with the Kremlin, obstructing the Russia investigation, making "racist comments" about four congresswomen, saying he would accept "dirt" from foreign governments about his domestic political opponents and finally the House's two impeachment articles: abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.
But what we have not seen is anything like a structural critique of ever-accumulating executive branch power itself. Democrats don't like the way Trump uses his authority, but that doesn't mean they want any less of the stuff in the White House, particularly when they get back the keys. To the contrary.
The Democratic presidential field, with the notable exception of faltering front-runner Joe Biden, has been engaging in a race to see who can make the most elaborate promises of immediate executive action. Forget 100 days; we're now talking 100 hours to see what that magical Oval Office pen and phone can do.
What's remarkable about the personal response to Trump's imperial actions is how completely different it is compared with the structural reaction against President Nixon's. Democrats (and some Republicans) in the wake of Watergate went on a spree of pruning back the runaway executive branch.
The 1973 War Powers Resolution reasserted the legislative branch's authority to declare war and approve emergency military actions. The 1974 Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act — which, fun fact, is the law Trump violated by withholding appropriated aid to Ukraine — sought to reestablish congressional power of the purse. The 1974 upgrade of the Freedom of Information Act was designed to prevent governments from hiding their activities. The 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was supposed to block warrantless snooping of U.S. citizens.

READ ENTIRE COLUMN

 I was on Senate staff during 1974-1978 period. As far as budgets, the Congress didn't prepare one. The President would send over his budget, and that is what Congress acted upon. At the end of the year, they would add up the total spending in the various appropriation bills, and that was the budget. My former boss, Senator Pete Domenici, was one of the leaders in getting the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act passed, and eventually became Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee. For years, this brought a semblance of fiscal responsibility to the budget process. Now, Congress just declares an "emergency" and then spends beyond the budget guidelines they had previously set.

There have been, consistently, two trends in our federal government: 1) The size and scope of the federal government continues to grow, and 2) The authority of the Executive Branch has continued to expand when compared to the Legislative Branch.

Much of the later has been caused by Congress itself. They "delegate" their authority to the Executive in most of the legislation they pass. In other instances the Executive just "takes" the authority, and Congress does nothing about it.

Republicans don't want to lessen the authority of the President when they hold that office, and the same is true of the Democrats, only more so. The end result has been a weakening of the Legislative Branch and a strengthening of the Executive.

Today we find ourselves in a situation where you are either pro-Trump or anti-Trump. Anyone who wants to diminish the authority of the Executive is considered to be anti-Trump. That is a shame, because the ever-expanding authority of the Executive is a legitimate issue that needs to be addressed in spite of the political parties or personalities that may be involved.

It is very clear our Founding Fathers considered the Legislative Branch to be dominant in our system:
 

It is by far the superior branch. James Madison made that clear for all time with his lapidary sentence in Federalist No. 51: “In republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates.”...All the highest powers of our constitutional system are vested in the Congress: the power to make war, to make laws, to ratify treaties, to raise money. It establishes and funds the executive agencies. It establishes the site and size of the federal courts (including the number of justices on the Supreme Court, which it has changed several times). It even has the power to approve the proper government of the states, according to Article IV, Section 4...Link

My, how we have strayed. 

Personally, I would prefer to see both trends reversed.