Obama rate of issuing executive orders is one of the lowest of any president in a hundred years:
SD, you're a smart guy so I don't know why you keep going to this ONE factor when it's been pointed out to you numerous times that peoples complaints are generally beyond simple "how many".
If people were claiming specifically that Obama is doing too many EO's or suggestnig EO's inherently are beyond a Presidents authority, then you'd be correct in posting this link. However, that's not what people are claiming...but you're just attacking a strawman of your own creation by acting like their focus is on one thing.
If I say a player is making poor decisions shooting the ball and he turns raound and goes "But coach! I only shot the ball 8 times and Johnson over there shot it 12! How dare you criticize me" that doesn't necessarily counter my point. Johnson's shots may've been high percentage while the other players wasn't. Johnson's may've been uncontested while the other players were while being double teamed. Johnson's may've been on set plays after ball movement, where as the other players were from him hogging the ball and putting up a shot.
There could be all sorts of factors as to why I say he was making a poor decision shooting; but he just throws out one metric and declares a win.
Unless you can show me an instance of the poster complaining about poor volume, this instance...as with previous instances where you've been called out about htis...is just you attempting to pidgeon hole an argument.
A large part of the argument regarding Obama and executive actions is not the volume, but the type of actions being under gone. Additionally, the issue is not even singularly resolving around "Executive orders" but a mass of executive action undertaken...both through EO's and directives via Executive Administrations.
When it comes to EO's, Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson laid the foundation for the three types that exist.
Those issued persuant to an expressed or implied authorization of Congress. In these cases the POTUS's authority is maximum, with an EO being invalid only if what it does is outside the scope of the governments power.
The next are those with a "Zone of Twilight"; instances where a President acts singularly based on his independent power and Congress has not spoken on the issue. Here, the validity of the EO is a bit more questionable and depends on the imperatives of the event and contemporary imponderables.
Finally, there are those that are incompatable with the expressed or implied will of Congress. This is the flip side of the first instance and is where the POTUS's authority is at it's lowest. The EO would only be constitutional if it's something a court could disable the congress from being able to act on.
Justice Jackson pointed out that instances falling in that last category are ones where the notion of checks and balances within our government becomes at stake.
Focusing singularly upon the "amount" is a dishonest reading of peoples complaints, basically placing blinders on and deciding to argue the path of least resistance rather than take any effort to honestly understand their complaints.
It is not simply the number but rather the method and style in which it's being done.
The issues with regards to immigration is a wonderful example of this. Proponents of the President will note that he was simply focusing enforcement towards certain problems and away from others. A legitimate defense. However, also legitimate is the opponents of the President's point that many of the designations that the Obama administration made for determining enforcement closely match a law that was attempted to be passed by congress and failed. As such, you're have an issue of an Executive Order that is incompatable with the expressed will of Congress. It was a course of action specifically dealt with in Congress and was unable to come to pass. That causes a greater question regarding the legitimacy of that executive order beyond one that was done in line with what Congress stated.
This is why it's foolish when people keep throwing out pure volume numbers as if every executive order or action is equal and the same.
The changing of implimentation dates within the passage of Obamacare is another legitimate issue. For example, the law laid out SPECIFIC dates that certain factors had to occur. And while they did provide for exemptions, they highlighted that said exemption couldn't come into effect until 2017. When congress clearly includes a specific date, and clearly includes that an exemption can't be done until 2017, it's difficult to argue that expressed OR implied will of the congress was that changing to a date sometime between those two points was perfectly okay. Yet that has not stopped exemption after exemption being issued by the Administration regarding the employee mandate.
These are the type of issues that people have when talking about his over reach of powers and not simply "how many". Continually posting up the same tired chart of "how many" is a poor debate tactic based upon intellectual dishonesty and an attempt to strawman that does a horrendous job of actually offering up substantitve counter arguments to the claims being made.
You've had this pointed out to you by others before, and you even aknowledegd it, so why you continue to then fall back to the same tired argument is confusing to me.