Eh... true enough, but I'm relatively certain that's not what most of the discussion of expanding executive power revolves around >_>
Then that is the only part of it worth discussing.
There is a system of checks and balances. When one branch is ineffective, the other branches pick up the slack. Remember when the Voting Rights Act was struck down partially? Congress could have fixed that in a single year. Remember both Obamacare decisions? They both got to the top purely because the wording was vague and Congress wasn't in the mood to clarify.
It impresses me: the degree to which Congress has abdicated power. Ordinarily, that is the one thing that unites the chamber, but now nothing really does. The Supreme Court analyzes interpretations of laws that Congress could clarify easily: either to allow the President such power (such as to regulate Coal Mining under the Clean Air Act as Obama has) or to curtail it by stepping on those interpretations. Now they do neither, so the Supreme Court's naturally grows to cover more territory: less "constitutional" and more "legal".
Consider, instead, Presidential Power to wage war. If Congress believed Obama was in violation of his rights or doing something and/or involved somewhere in a way he should not be, they could state so and take action. If they believed he was in the right regarding his current actions, they could pass an authorization. Instead, they do nothing, and by doing so weaken their ability to check the President in the future.
This is not an agreeable state-of-affairs.