This is actually an example of the stopped clock phenomenon. If you read the actual text of the Constitution, it is clear that the Founders meant for Congress to be in the driver's seat (later rhetoric about "three coequal branches" notwithstanding) -- they pass the legislation the executive enforces, they constitute courts, they can impeach and remove officers of the other two branches for "high crimes and misdemeanors", a phrase, which when it was written (and to this day) doesn't only include violations of statutory law, but abuse of power with Congress being the sole judge of when power has been abused. Yes, both the executive (principally through the Presidential veto) and the courts (esp. post Madison v. Marbury) exercise some check on Congress, but they have no analogous sway over Congress to that Congress has over the other branches as specified in the Constitution .
Now, if anyone in Congress is serious about being the superior branch of government, they need to wind a back all the legislative authority previous Congresses have given to the executive in granting authority to make "regulation" "implementing" laws (which are really, effectively laws), and stop giving power away to the executive. Taking the notion seriously is, of course, anathema to the Left because they like unelected officials (whether bureacrats in the executive or judges on the Federal bench) making law, the same way the UK Parliament likes the European Commmission making law -- their ideological and class interests are served without much effective appeal by the people and without them having to get their hands dirty.
