Good post. I’m no lawyer, but I agree that the argument about the need for standing is a legal dodge. The illegal enforcement or non-enforcement of laws should cause standing just by the “fact of”. People alter behavior because of it, and you shouldn’t need to prove it - it should be self-evident.
Perhaps the amount of impact should affect the punishment. That is, for example, if it’s merely “fact of”, the minimum should be censure, and if it continues, removal from office. If it was catastrophic damage to a nation, then Life Imprisonment.
As hard as it is to emotionally agree, he actually touched on the fundamental design of our Framers’ constitution. Their system did not rely on, as Madison put it, “parchment barriers” to secure freedom. They divided power, first vertically between the states and the government they created, and secondly through horizontal separation of power among the three branches.
In this battle, since we are talking about constitutional amendments anyway, I prefer Mark Levin's approach. His suggested amendments would re-federalize the government more than the Framers’ design. Instead of endless lawsuits whose outcome is up to the whims of nine black-robes, the interests of states, as represented in a senate of the states, would be far more likely to take care of executive branch overreach before it happened.