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.
Only if you think a lot of them should have been struck down for some reason. But since Presidents do tend understand what an Executive Order can and can't do, there's no reason to think a lot of them should have been.
"Our impass seems to be focused on what is or isn’t open to presidents to address through Executive Orders."
Yes, that's what I was addressing. Executive Orders are generally directions to the Executive department, all the agencies and employees that report to him. They aren't laws and generally don't have any authority over the general public.
The only place where they might is where the President has such authority in the first place. The order is just the means to execute that authority.
The common misunderstanding is that Executive Orders are laws handed down by the President about anything he likes.
"If a president chooses to address a matter, he can."
He could issue an order telling the sun to stop shining. It doesn't make much sense to argue about what he COULD write. The fact is, just as he has no authority over the sun, he can't order anything else unless he already has the authority to do it.