There's a lot of debate about the overuse of Obama and executive orders. This brings back the Clinton years and Paul Begala's quote "stroke of the pen, law of the land, pretty cool." The problem with this is two fold. One is easy abuse of power. The presidency wasn't meant to be a king, or even a prime minister. The presidency is meant to be a glorified executive director. Another problem is an increasing quasi-legislative role of the presidency.
Some say "we need to elect someone to lead us." I don't. I don't need, nor want, a leader. I'm perfectly capable of leading myself. I'm electing an employee, an executive director who is supposed to be a good caretaker of a limited executive branch. I don't care if the person there is Obama, Bush, or someone I would support that wouldn't be a lesser of two evils. I'd vote for a Mike Pence in a minute, but I'd still want to see a limited power executive branch.
SCOTUS is probably going to make some determination's to the limits of executive orders.That said, this is a problem going back way before Obama, and way before Bill Clinton for that matter. Many branches of the Executive Branch are notorious for abusing their power. EPA. BATFE. TSA. HHS. IRS. That's the fault of the executive branch, but also the fault of Congress. They created the departments and gave broad regulatory powers to these departments.
Congress gave the executive order powers by broad regulation matters. We're paying for that now. Some of those departments like the BATF(E) and TSA should be eliminated. Gone. Othes should be severely limited.
Don't like the executive orders? Then take the power away from the executive branch.