but as I follow your logic to its conclusion - all legislation is executive because it is signed and then administered by the executive
indeed - when BO was in office - most if not all Republicans got furious with BO because they said his executive branch was not administering the laws of congress as written - but rather BO and team were in essence "writing law" by the way they read laws and acted. Republicans en mass screamed of an IMPERIAL executive that was stripping congress of what is its job
If a President can indeed re read the laws and administer in unique ways (like or dislike the action) why have congress ? (keep in mind as one imperial presidency has been followed by another)
In principal - the argument that the powers of the executive to read laws as it wishes is not a true power is an argument I agree with. We have a three part system and Congress writes the laws and the Executive and Judiciary should not write laws. For the best example of imperial presidency (ignoring aspects of laws) see the multitude of SIGNING statements by George W)
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
