[hinckley buzzard]

Executive orders are permissible under what is known as the implied powers doctrine. The president is charged with execution of the law, but usually "the law" as written by Congress is vague as to how he is to do it. It has been established that the president must be able to issue orders to carry out his duty.

The problem arises when EO's are issued pursuant to no particular law, but rather the mere wishes of the president to have his way. That is where Obama routinely crossed the line. His "phone and pen" crap reveals his contempt for legislative due process. An EO is not an alternative to a new law.

[Jim W N]

The president is charged with execution of the law, but usually "the law" as written by Congress is vague as to how he is to do it

The implied powers doctrine has taken this idea way too far so that now we have an unconstitutional fourth branch of government accountable to no one called the Administrative State or Regulatory State that issues unconstitutional "regulations" which are laws not passed by Congress.

Often if and when Congress passes a vague law, the President should before signing, send it back asking for more specificity.