[vmception]

> The presidents are passing hundreds of them during their terms.

There is a major lack of oversight on Executive Orders.

BUT for the most part they are an accurate use from what I can tell. Usually they are merely aspirational goals for agencies to implement, much more similar to a CEO's quarterly goals for subdivisions. The President is a dual office role of being head of the executive branch, and being head of the military.

I don't really see that much straight up unilateral ordering of specific actions, and those would be the only constitutionally questionable ones.

[edmcnulty101]

Are they creating new laws with Executive actions?

That would seem like it falls under the legislative branch.

[colejohnson66]

Executive Orders, technically, are only orders from the Executive (the President) to the rest of the branch. As in, they can only tell the rest of the Executive Branch what to do, not create laws. However, with how much Congress has delegated to Executive Agencies, there's a lot more overlap and gray area than there was 233 years ago.

For example, the CDC has the authority to mandate certain things in the name of public health, because Congress created the HHS (who oversees the CDC) with the express purpose of doing so. So an Executive Order directed at the CDC can, in a sense, give the President that power.