No, “executive orders” should generally be questioned because they are both a legislative and executive act. That was my point in bringing up Obama because that is basically how he got around Congress and got away with it.
It’s worth asking about that here if you care anything about the future of our Free Constitutional Republic and the force of law of the Constitution.
Congress can at any time rescind their authorization for the president to use his discretion on any given topic.
Congress allowed Obama to throw open the borders without vetting invaders, and Congress allows Trump to re-institute strict vetting.
Congress WANTS to evade responsibility, hoping voters will just blame the president instead of them. The Executive Branch is designed to respond to the president in the absence of enforced directives from Congress.
Wrong.
Obama attempted to legislate through executive orders, but he's one of few (if any) presidents who've ever attempted to circumvent the Constitution in that way.
You're talking as though executive orders are a new and unusual invention. They aren't. Every president, including George Washington, has issued them. They're merely communiques from the President to his various agencies, in which he sets forth his legal and constitutional directives.