Mt. Rushmore: Three surveyors and some other guy.
Life goes on within you and without you. -Harrison
Hear the echoes of the centuries, Power isn't all that money buys. -Peart
After you learn quantum mechanics you're never really the same again. -Weinberg
Greatness lies not in being strong, but in the right use of strength - Henry Ward Beecher
Baby sister, I was born game and I intend to go out that way - Rooster Cogburn
I myself am in support and opposition of the EO, depending on how it is used.
Often times it was used for situations where either legislation really could not solve an issue (segregation), or in the case of something that can't wait for legislation to take place (a lot of those of FDR). And most of the time, it was used in lieu of legislative action.
However, this time we are seeing it used a lot after something fails to pass legislation, and that bothers me a lot. When some proposal fails to pass legislation, then I feel an EO should be strictly forbidden since it violates the separation of powers. However, I will grant that I would generally overlook a limited EO, say for a single year (with a fixed expiration date and a provision that it could not be renewed without legislative approval) to give a chance for new legislation to be drafted and passed.
For a hypothetical example, imagine if some study came out saying that cutting grass increased the greenhouse effect. I feel that the President would have a right to order the Federal Government to stop cutting grass because he is the Chief Executive Officer. I feel he would also have a right to put a limited moratorium on the cutting of grass, say for one year for the legislative process to be followed. But after that year, the general ban should expire and no further EO should be allowed short of directed at the federal government itself.
And this should be only direct through action, not an "action through inaction" such as ordering the government to not follow laws and policies.
War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. - John Stuart Mill
Are you kidding? Think about it. It'll come to you. What you missed - it'll come... ok maybe not. Give up? Sir (veyor), who cares about which order is dictatorial? The dictatorial is when he omits congress from participating in the way that they were designed to participate, specifically so that a dictatorship would not be able to occur. He is bypassing the tool that was set in place to prevent dictatorships. Please watch the link. In it, Panetta makes it clear that he places the UN and NATO above congress. This is what you support? If you value your freedom and American values, you would refrain from commenting in support of this rogue government. Be part of the solution. Americans cannot afford to be passive any longer.
Obama has used less EO than any other president for the past... what? 50 years? And before that of course FDR used a lot of EO's. He eventually had to fight a war you know.
So Obama is not abusing his power, but the executive branch is already very powerful because it has been invested with a great deal of power because of negligent laws passed. However, he still is just in his second term. We will see at the end of the second term how many EO's he will have signed. I suppose he will exceed George Bush Sr. but I doubt he will surpass George W. Bush or Clinton.