Maybe this will get your attention..

Administration of George W. Bush (2001-2009)Disposition of Executive orders signed by President George W. Bush:

Subject Index

http://www.archives.gov/federal-registe ... wbush.html

2009 - E.O. 13484 - E.O. 13488 (5 Executive orders issued)
2008 - E.O. 13454 - E.O. 13483 (30 Executive orders issued)
2007 - E.O. 13422 - E.O. 13453 (32 Executive orders issued)
2006 - E.O. 13395 - E.O. 13421 (27 Executive orders issued)
2005 - E.O. 13369 - E.O. 13394 (26 Executive orders issued)
2004 - E.O. 13324 - E.O. 13368 (45 Executive orders issued)
2003 - E.O. 13283 - E.O. 13323 (41 Executive orders issued)
2002 - E.O. 13252 - E.O. 13282 (31 Executive orders issued)
2001 - E.O. 13198 - E.O. 13251 (54 Executive orders issued)

291 by Obama's predecessor and I'd be willing to bet that at least one of them violates your precept of "strict constitutionalism." I didn't take the time to review them to back my claim as I don't think I have to. The government needs a single point, if you will, of control in a major crisis. Like when the poles shift and the earth erupts to bring the rapture. And if you'd like to discuss the fact that Obama ran on a plank in his platform of not using such Executive Orders, thats okay. But then again, I don't think Obama realized the amount of opposition his policies would face from a just say no Congress from Day 1. But bottom line, all presidents have used them, even Reagan. And the ultimate decider of whether its enough of an issue is an election.

And if I read the EO that you sited in your original post correctly, it doesn't give Obama unlimited power to seize control and become a defacto king but rather streamlines the chain of command within his cabinet, involving the cabinet secretaries in the decision making process and in their absence or inability to make decisions, for whatever reason, giving the president, in this case Obama, the ability to make a decision and have it carried out. I find this more comforting than, "Heckofajob Brownie."

Peace.

---