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.
It is either Constitutional or not to have executive orders. It can’t be any simpler than that.