jem, I don't know enough to comment on those specific orders. If you will give me the specific order number you are interested in, they are available within the Wiki article, I will read them and attempt to comment if I find I have an opinion one way or another. You must know that I would like to see Presidential power somewhat diminished. The sad reality is our Congress has often been, since Gingrich, in such disarray whenever we have a divided houses, that they can't get much done, and in particular under these circumstances, it's nearly impossible for them to muster the votes to override a President's veto.
Executive orders, which are not mentioned directly in the Constitution but inferred by the President's duty to see that the laws "be faithfully executed," are a responsibility of the President and by extension, the Agency Heads. They are needed for day to day smooth functioning of the Federal Agencies. When the President issues executive orders, it is inferred, by the power given to the President to ask for the agency head's opinions in writing, that the president will generally do so.
Executive orders are not laws, but directives that should at all times remain within the confines of any pertaining laws. The courts have made it abundantly clear that executive orders may not contradict Constitutional or Statutory law. Where there is a reasonable question Re how a law should be interpreted, or put into practice by the agencies, the chief administrator, i.e., the President, might offer guidance via executive order. Sometimes, where the law is silent, the President might intervene via executive order in the interest of deciding how an agency should handle a situation that had not been previously contemplated. Such an order might even have the appearance of statutory law, but it would not be, as the President may not make laws. Thus Congress could intervene with either a statutory law that confirms the Administrative branches decision or overrules it. The Congress, or any party with standing, can also go to court if it believes the Administration has issued an order that violates existing Constitutional or statutory law.
If the Executive acts, as it were, ultra vires, and issues an executive order that violates existing law and there is no timely challenge, the order may be allowed to stand and even be put into practice for a considerable time. In that case, a serious conflict could arise later. It is by this means, I suppose, that the Executive Branch might appear to have made new law; shall we call it "executive law?" Such ersatz 'law' would remain on loose footing, and would always be subject to challenge by the legislative branch or anyone harmed by such an executive order who might therefore demonstrate standing.
Naturally the smooth running of government agencies requires a more or less constant stream of executive orders for situations not previously contemplated within either Constitutional or Statutory law. (When we make our laws it is impossible to anticipate everything in advance.) I suppose it is in the nature of a particular administration whether the bulk of executive decisions are handled at the agency level or in the oval office. Something is wrong in my opinion, if they are more often the latter. This would usually depend, I suppose, on how hands-on a particular President is. That might reflect how competent Agency Heads are, as viewed from above... but it could equally reflect how competent a President is. An incompetent President might not recognize competence in the agency heads, or worse, due to his own incompetence, might appoint even less competent agency heads. The only check on incompetence prior to a President's taking office is given to the people directly. After an incompetent President takes office, however, the only check is given to the Congress, or the Cabinet.
