Are the branches of government truly co-equal?

The branches of government today cannot be considered as co-equal branches of government, with the Executive branch gaining dominance over the Legislative branch and the Judiciary. This is so because of the overwhelming resources both in cash and political power at the disposal of the members of the Executive branch and its leader, the President. It is the ideal arrangement that the three branches of government will serve as a check against each other's abuse of power against the people. The resulting slow process of effecting much needed government programs is deemed less important than the necessity of ensuring that the rights of the people are not trampled upon by the concentration of power in one despot. But this ideal arrangement would seem to be only realizable in the realm of theory. In actual practice, political considerations and personal ambitions of the members of the different branches of government would invariably pave the way for the dominance of the Executive branch over the other two branches of government. The President, more often than not, is the leader of the ruling party, and as such leader, he can command other members of the party to toe the line of the ruling party, thus rendering ineffective the supposed concept of checks and balances in government. Even in areas wherein the Executive and the Legislative branches might have overlapping functions, such as in the areas of foreign policy, starting a war or appointing officials to positions that are subject to confirmation by the Commission on Appointments, the Executive branch has other powers and resources at its disposal to influence the other branch into submitting to the whim of the President. Because the President is the leader of the party, he controls whatever each party member is doing and should be doing. This power to influence his partymates does not emanate from the Office of the President but from the chairmanship of the ruling party.1 Another power which the President has already encroached upon is the power of the Legislative branch over the purse, which, because of political considerations and the personal ambitions of the individual members of Congress has now become a concurrent function of the Executive branch. For instance, revenue and tariff bills may only originate from the House of Representatives2 based on the doctrine that there can be no taxation without representation, but no congressman would be successful in pushing for new tax measures without the consent of the President. This is because no congressman, if he's a member of the ruling party, would want earn the ire of the President. And if he's not a member of the ruling party, he would want to be in the President's favorat least to get his pork barrel allocations that would make or break his bid for a reelection in his district. On the part of the Judiciary, it would seem that it remains relatively independent of the influence of the Executive branch. But the Judiciary's power is little compared to the powers of the Executive or the Legislative branches of government, because the Judiciary can only passively act on issues that are presented before it, and it cannot enforce its decisions and draws only its power from the integrity of the institution.
1 Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952) (Jackson, J., concurring) 2 Sec. 24, Art. VI, 1987 Constitution