I think a better description is "some of the writers . . . ". Hamilton certainly wanted a “vigorous executive” (Fed 70) and Washington certainly felt empowered to set up executive departments.
The writers of the Constitution as they did so many times tried to balance two opposing considerations.
They were violently opposed to a standing army. They were also worshipful of George Washington, who had led the Continental Army and who everyone expected to become President.
Washington fought with the Continental Congress at every moment, mostly over the lack of money he was given. He also disliked the political generals Congress created.
The Convention saw that Congress wasn’t a good choice to run the Army. Their job would be to sit back and let capable military men run wars and provide them with money and supplies. The soldiers would be raised from militias. Without a standing army but with a President to take command in the field - which Washington had done in the per-Constitution Shay’s Rebellion and again in the Whiskey Rebellion after he was President - the nation was covered. Reality forced a change in the early 19th century, but the founders wrote with an eye to their times.
Same with the Executive Branch. Article 2, Section 2 of the Constitution makes the President Commander-in-Chief and only then says “he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices…”
So he was in charge of the military, but the Departments were independent and played an advisory role. They were expected to have their own thoughts, agendas, and policies, not just carry out those of the President. Congress established four Departments: State, Treasury, War, and the Post Office. Given that Jefferson was Secretary of State and Hamilton was Secretary of the Treasury, the Departments were so independent that they drove Washington nuts. This remained the case at least through Lincoln.
The two roles, therefore, was conceived of differently from the start, and evolved into almost the opposite as times changed. Today’s Presidents have far more day-to-day control over Departments - with some theoretical exceptions, like Justice - but only final decision-making control over the military.
This is correct. But the factual answer to the OP’s question is that the convention changed after Nixon* so blatantly politicized the Justice department. Since that time, and with the exception of Donald Trump, President’s have adhered to a policy of maintaining operational distance from the Attorney General’s office.
*Nixon wasn’t the only one, of course. JFK’s attorney general was his brother. They absolutely worked in close tandem.
I believe the most notable involvement in an anti-crime initiative post-Nixon was Reagan’s expansion of the “War on Drugs”. Reagan’s administration was certainly active across many areas of government in increasing budgets to support actions to counter drug crimes, passing drug crime legislation, issuing executive orders to make criminal penalties for drug crimes harsher, and expanding action against drug-trafficking cartels. His first attorney general, William French Smith, was a strong supporter of Reagan’s anti-drug initiative.
Having said that, I’m not sure how deeply involved Reagan personally was in the directions of the operations of the War on Drugs beyond setting goals and receiving updates. Reagan had a reputation for delegation and relying on his subordinates. He definitely was involved in directing the goals and priorities on the Department of Justice during his administration. Whether that included providing executive direction to DOJ missions, I don’t know about.
Note to repliers: Just a friendly reminder that this is Factual Questions and the subject being discussed is the President’s interaction with the Department of Justice. I do not wish to be the initiator of a hijack discussing the War on Drugs or Reagan’s legacy. Please.