"An executive order of the president must find support in the Constitution, either in a clause granting the president specific power, or by a delegation of power by Congress to the president."
The Constitution is indeed protected by the separation of powers so that an executive order cannot implement unconstitutional law or act contrary to Congressional approval without judicial consequence. It is constitutionally the job of the courts as one of the three equal branches to challenge and act.
The power of the judiciary, (unlike executive orders of which there is no mention) was decided at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in 1787 where no Founder disputed the power of the judiciary to set aside unconstitutional law. This does in practice and effect not bind the executive, but holds them to lawful account.
At the Constitutional Convention, neither did they question federal judges would have the same power to set aside unconstitutional legislation from Congress. There is no provision for any executive order to abuse or be above the powers of law. "A law that ought to be negatived will be set aside in the Judiciary department." James Madison
Not one Founder or Framer disputed or questioned their collectively held understanding that federal judges would have the power to suspend or nullify through judiciary power.
And of course it gets political when a politician issues edict through an executive order. And it is a little politically hysterical if not paranoid to presume everything that challenges Trump is to delegitimize Trump. You are of course aware courts have struck down a Democrat President's executive orders.
That you don't see a downside to a President ignoring the 3rd Branch suggests a North Korean system might appeal more.
Perhaps someone in the White House should be responsible for putting 'I fought the law and the law won' on Trump's and one or two other President's playlists.
