Executive Orders are not laws. The are simply instructions from the President that implement his existing powers.
The 2/3rds bit comes from the fact that if the Congress chose to pass another law that removed a Presidential power, they might have to overcome a veto.
If the President doesn't have a power in the fist place, he can't excercise it through an Executive Order. Anyone that was affected by the order could challenge it in court.
"Clinton issued plenty of them. Nobody challenged them and they remained on the books."
One of Clinton's was overturned in court.
I believe he issued quite a few of them, so only one being struck down, that isn’t very impressive.
Our impass seems to be focused on what is or isn’t open to presidents to address through Executive Orders.
I believe a president is open to address quite a bit, way beyond his own sphere or job related matters.
If a president chooses to address a matter, he can. You are quite right that he can be challenged. Until he is and that EO is struck down by the courts or Congress, it stands.
I think you are down-playing the shenanigans a president can actually implement through Executive Order.
You mentioned earlier that a lot of folks have a misconception regarding this. And those who think as I do may be the ones who have one. I’m still not convinced you may don’t.