I'll grant you that Congress has played it's part in usurping power from the States to the Federal Government. However, the states themselves have played a consenting role in far too many times as well. The Courts have been complicit by sanctioning those power grabs. Blame lies at more than just the feet of Congress alone.
In some instances states provoked the Federal Government to seize power from the States. Segregation comes to mind. There was nothing the Federal Government could do to compel the states to dismantle the segregation they had erected. The only way top accomplish this was for the Federal Government to step in and dismantle it themselves. I personally think it was the right thing to do, because it was a pernicious and vile structure that needed to be dismantled.
You make claims that what Trump wants is more Executive power, yet you provide nothing to back up that claim. So I can't really respond to a claim that has no bearing on reality other than to say I disagree.
You also make claim that he will need to increase Executive power to deliver on his promises. Now that I can argue. He needs a mandate. That mandate will force Congress to provide him with the legislation and the funding to build a wall and triple the Border Patrol agents along the southern border. So he doesn't need to increase Executive powers at all to keep that promise. The laws are already on the books for him, so demanding enforcement of those laws do not require an increase in Executive power either.
For him to live up to his promise to repeal "Obamacare" will require legislation from Congress but he is signaling he is willing to sign that legislation. If Congress failed to provide that legislation, he would then appeal to the people to put pressure on Congress to present him with the legislation. So no new Executive power needed for that promise.
Those are the two main promises he has stated consistently through his campaign, if you have others you would like me to address I will gladly do so.
Now let's examine your last statement.
This is the "long view", and your arguments for Trump, or against Cruz suffer from the peculiar malady that seems to infect American politics - the inability to consider anything beyond the next election.
Right now border control and enforcement are extremely important, without them a "long view" is worthless. He can only suggest other things that you seem to fear him doing. It would be up to Congress to enable him to do so. That is where their responsibilities come into play. He is not the King, nor is he the dictator. Which is where we the citizens come into play, to speak out against anything he might suggest that would be counter productive to this society. Ah you say, he could use the power of the pen like Obama. The reality is any President can do that, and many past Presidents have. Again, that could be solved by a Congressional Act, but getting a President to sign that legislation would be rather difficult. The other avenue is an Amendment prohibiting it. But until either or both remedies have been used and provide the necessary change, that is the reality.
Since Presidents can only serve 8 years maximum, they can have only two ways of having a lasting impact. Supreme court Justice picks, and legislation they sign. Even Presidents we have supported have failed miserably on the Supreme Court Justice picks. Two of Reagan's Justices, Sandra Day O'Connor, and Anthony M. Kennedy were equally good and bad on decisions. Of course Kennedy came after Bork got "Borked". Antonin Scalia was an over-the-top great pick. Bush gave us John G. Roberts, absolutely horrendous in my opinion, but he did better with Samuel Alito. Bush's father gave us Clarence Thomas, another very good pick. Hopefully Donald will pick Justices that are on the more conservative side of the spectrum, but that is why the Senate is tasked with Advise & Consent responsibilities. Something they have not lived up to expectations on in too many instances, but that is the way it is. Hopefully since Republicans are in control of both Houses of Congress they will not be providing Donald with legislation that is damaging to the Republic either, but we can't even guarantee that, can we.
Now provide me the "long view" you think Ted has to have wio your vote for him, and how you think he will get the job done.
I won't make that promise. You expressed concerns earlier that I didn't support Trump because I had be prejudiced by the "smears" against him. I assure you that is not the case. I've based my concerns purely on what he has to say, not concerns about his sister and her association with Planned Parenthood, his reported associations with the Mob, his past political contributions, or any number of the "guilt by association" arguments that are floating around out there. If you can't or won't allow that to be applied equally to both sides then quit now. We're done.
If you're still with me, here is Donald Trump talking about Obama's use of executive orders and his own intent to continue in his footsteps:
"I won't refuse it. I'm going to do a lot of things," Trump said when asked if he would use executive orders in an interview Sunday on NBC"s "Meet the Press."
“I mean, he’s led the way, to be honest with you,” he added, referring to Obama.
The Republican primary front-runner said his executive orders, unlike the president’s, will be for the “right things.”
“But I’m going to use them much better and they’re going to serve a much better purpose than he’s done,” he said.
And here is Donald talking about starting to return federal land to state control:
Trump cautioned, however, that states would be unpredictable in maintaining the designated lands.
"I mean, are they going to sell if they get into a little bit of trouble?" Trump asked. "I don't think it's something that should be sold."
He added: "We have to be great stewards of this land. This is magnificent land. And we have to be great stewards of this land."
From a constitutionalist perspective, Trump is dead nuts wrong on both of these issues, and likely will continue to be on any domestic policy decision that would result in the continued erosion of the authority of the states, and the concentration of power and control in the legislative and executive branches of the federal government.