Is the Imperial Presidency Dead?

In one of my classes, we were having a discussion about the ways in which our presidents (past and present have tried to extend the scope of their authority. One of my classmates asserted that Richard Nixon was the last to expand his powers to the point of imperialism. I had to disagree and upon my objection, I was asked to back my counterclaim.

(Image from Wikimedia Commons at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Nixon#mediaviewer/File:Nixon_and_Dobrynin_-_Flickr_-_The_Central_Intelligence_Agency.jpg)

Nixon may be the most obvious and extreme example of an imperial president, but he is not the last. An imperial presidency occurs when there is a substantial expansion in presidential power. The role of the imperial president was so profound that people had begun to adjust to the idea of the president taking on multiple responsibilities, and are said to even be more comfortable with the strong leadership presented by such a president.

Watergate was a very extreme show of imperial presidential power, but it is not the only one. President Reagan expanded his power when he invaded Grenada and Libya without evoking the War Powers Resolution. President H.W. Bush did the same when he sent troops into Kuwait without a formal declaration of war from congress. It was the same case with Clinton when he sent troops to Haiti, Somali,  and under NATO auspices, Bosnia without congressional authorization. These presidents, some of which are still popular among citizens, definitely fit the description of an imperial president. 
 

Some even say President Obama is an imperial president: https://www.askheritage.org/how-is-obamas-acting-like-an-imperial-president/