[sakic]

I don’t favor executive orders, but by the time Obama leaves office, he will have far less of them than Reagan.

This belongs to both parties.

[loveliberty2]

You observe that the current President will have fewer EO's than Reagan. We must examine each President' use of the Executive Order, not in terms of the total number, but in terms of the purpose of that Order.

Executive Orders should be examined by whether the purpose of the Order is designed to "uphold and defend" the Constitution's limitations on government power and is in tune with the Constitution's protections of the people's liberty, or whether those orders are designed to subvert the Constitution's limits on government power over "the People," or over another branch of government, in violation of the Constitution's original structuring of those powers.

An interesting example of a Reagan Executive Order dealing with Federalism which might be considered supportive of Constitutional principles versus a Clinton Executive Order dealing with the same subject is discussed here

A President's Executive Order supportive of the Founders' Constitution's principles to protect "the People's" liberty and to comply with its limits on coercive government power is one thing.

A President's Executive Order whose intended consequence is to bypass the Founders' principles and provisions is quite another thing.

Numbers of EO's is not the question.

[Will88]

I don’t favor executive orders, but by the time Obama leaves office, he will have far less of them than Reagan.

Executive orders are legal and even necessary in limited circumstances. But Obama, as he says, is using them to bypass Congress, or to act when the "refuse to act".

Can you name any EOs issued by Reagan on par with Obama's plans to legalize millions of illegal aliens? How many executive orders a president issues doesn't mean much.