Those who are complaining the loudest today said little to nothing about the alleged "above of executive power/executive over-reach" when their guy was in office and THEY themselves gave the President of their party such broad authorities. Yet, the moment the other guy gets into office and uses the same executive power granted to his predecessor to solve problems or streamline processes where Congress won't act in a timely manner, suddenly he's called a tyrant, a king or placed along that same imaginary line as a dictator.
While I would agree that Presidents since Lincoln (if not earlier than he) have used their executive power to do things that a divided Congress could not come to terms with in a timely fashion to resolve many of the nation's problems, I find it very absurd to think that any President would continue to sit ideally by and do nothing while such a divided Congress continues to have their ideological tiffs. Moreover, if Congress doesn't like what the President has authorized via executive order, it can always undo said order by legislating. Yes, process matters but until Congress removes the privilege of executive orders from the presidency, current and future president will use them. The question we should legitimately be asking is "has the President overstepped his bounds with the EO issued?" As far as I'm concerned, if Congress doesn't impeach, his EO's are legitimate. Furthermore, the Supreme Court has already ruled on the issue of "executive privilege" long ago. So, unless something drastic happens, I seriously doubt things will change in this realm of authoritarian tug-o-war between the President and Congress any time soon.
Process, ladies and gentlemen...
"A fair exchange ain't no robbery." Tupac Shakur w/Digital Underground