We'll see....five Executive Orders in three days. How many will be next and what will they cover? Only time will tell. I would prefer issues be debated by Congress whenever possible and EO's only be used in certain situations. My reason for this is that the weight of an EO carries as much as Congress. Is it wise that one person in the nation's highest office have that much power? Do EO's undermine the separation of powers? And what prevents the abuse of power with EO's?
The dichotomy here is that the power of executive order is both supported and limited by the Constitution. So, when is it appropriate and when it is not appropriate to use EO?
The Heritage foundation cites examples in which EO's are necessary and constitutional if and only if the President is "lawfully exercising" his duties in one of the following functions: Commander in Chief, Head of State, Chief Law Enforcement Officer, or Head of the Executive Branch.
There have been quite a few EO's which expressed an abuse of power. One of the most revered Presidents in modern history was one of the worst offenders. With the use of EO's, FDR greatly expanded government and violated the Constitutional rights of Americans by implementing interment camps for US citizens of Japanese descent. And President Harry Truman also shamefully committed an abuse of power by attempting to seize the steel industry during the Korean conflict. It takes awhile to read every single EO ever written and I don't have the time but maybe you do and you can find them here. It would be interesting to know the EO's issued that were above and beyond the scope of Presidential power.
One can only wonder what will happen during this Presidency.