We seem to only see it when our political enemies are in power.  As the character of those elected gets worse and the cabal that is his unchecked court does the same, the effects become obvious to at least a majority of those in the opposition (until they get a turn at the wheel).

It has been posited that a clear example of the road to the Imperial Presidency is the Plebiscitary Presidency . . . in this it is meant that once the POTUS is elected he becomes unaccountable to Congress, the press, the public except in the case of election or impeachment.   

Can anyone not see this is where we are?  Many of us thought we were there with Obama or even Bush . . . but these men at least acted with the expectations of a majorities of both parties.  And if you act in lockstep with the creeping traditions of the Imperial Presidency nobody barks to loudly I guess.

Trump has done nothing extra-ordinary even though one would not know that from reading this forum.  It is roiled daily (even hourly) with his latest never-before act of uncouth.  What you are witnessing is the character of the man unencumbered by the office.  It was supposed to be the other way around.

I invite everyone to read Schlesinger's book.  The office has been creeping toward this and Trump has done nothing alone to make the office what it is.  He only shows you why you should fear it.

Did you fear it when Obama claimed the right to drone bomb US citizens?  No, I was told that would never happen because . . . well . . . we expect the people in charge to have character.  What do you say now?

Did you fear it when Bush claimed the right to abduct people and take them to far away places and torture them?  

Did you fear it when Obama bombed Kaddaffi out of power and turned Libya into a terrorist haven without nary a glance at Congress?

I grow weary of hearing about Trump's protocol breaches, his tweets, his missteps, his shoving other world leaders . . . we care about all this because it makes us "look bad"?

Did you care when Bush said he could grab Jose Padilla (a US citizen) and hold him WITHOUT DUE PROCESS FOR-E-VER!  I guess he didn't twit-fart it so . . .

I'm not sure why those actions from Bush and Obama weren't hourly twitstorms . . . since they are far more grave and serious . . . yet Trump's verbal tirades against the London mayor are meltdown.  So much of a meltdown it brought Mudlizard into Lounge-suckitude with both feet.

What Trump exposes with his lack of character and "normalcy" has been apparent for a while . . . if only you were willing to see it.

ps.  Thank the purple farting dragon for the SCOTUS and Federal courts . . . the only entity capable of exercising a non-Plebiscitary check on the office (regardless of who resides in it).

As we've discussed, I agree that the presidency has become far too powerful.  Congress has been failing in it's duty to assert it's authority for some time.  I agreed that this was true when Obama was President, even though I conceded that I would do pretty much the same thing if Congress would neither work with me nor prevent me from acting unilaterally.

Regardless, the imperial presidency needs correction. We agree.

But upon reflection what I find surprising is that I am hard pressed to identify what objectionable things Trump is doing that don't fall under the reasonable purview of presidential powers.  I don't like that he withdrew from the Paris Accords, but that was not a Congress approved treaty.  He had the right and most Conservative Americans (who won the election and earned the right for their voices hold sway over mine) agreed with that move.  His dismantling of EPA regulations - same thing.  His proposed budget and ACA repeal attempts - just part of the normal legislative process.  Appointments - same.

These and many more topics are simply political disagreements and neither examples of an imperial presidency nor deplorable behavior.  

It is in other actions that things get more interesting, but not in an imperial presidency way.  Trump's selective immigration ban is not presidential overreach.   Presidents should have the authority to set immigration standards for national security.  But when a presidential candidate explicitly tells us that he intends to ban people on the basis of religion, we're not supposed to elect him.  The fault is not with presidential powers but electoral judgment.

Presidents have primary responsibility for foreign policy.  That is quite reasonable.  Trump did everything he could to let us know that he was going to be an ill informed oafish bully when it comes to foreign policy.  Yet we elected him anyway.  That was unreasonable. 

And in so many ways, that is what the real issue is here.  The office of the President is not meant to be so meaningless as to make it irrelevant if we elect a narcissistic conman into the position.  We are supposed to be collectively smart enough not to. 

That is the real failure here.