What you see above is the American Government as it was from 1776 - 1789 under the Articles of Confederation. The American Government under the Confederation had a stronger Legislative Branch and Local Power than Executive power. That system begat Shay's Rebellion and gave America, the Constitution.
The test of how mature a Political party is, can it give power to another branch, knowing that their party does not own it? Nixon signed onto the War Powers Act of 1973; Newt's Congress gave President Clinton, the Line Item Veto Act of 1996 (eventually overturned by the Supreme Court)
Today's Democrats squeal every time President Bush signs an Executive Order or writes a Signing Statement; Rather then challenge each individual power in court, the Democrats let that power slide because, should their own people get into 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, the next Democratic President will use the same powers President Bush has. Within the presidential Branch, there is the the power of the precedent. What one president does, another will follow. If you know your history, Nixon did nothing different then Kennedy or Johnson. Bush's precedents lie within the Clinton administration.
I've been in both parties,, I've been up and down the scale in politics and policy; What I do understand, we dropped the Articles of Confederation because of the lack of concentrated power in an Executive -- a weak President domestically has no influence in foreign affairs and vice versa. Karma has a way of coming round when you least want it, do the modern Democrats wish to cut powers from the Executive Branch? Any powers lost under a Republican will be lost under a Democrat as well.
President Clinton has the right of Executive Privilege regarding his staff, as does president Bush. You deny one, you deny both. My question is simply: would you take powers from the Executive Branch of a President you dislike, knowing that a President you support will not have those powers either?