Executive orders are akin to the CEO of a company having a memo distributed to one or all the departments of the company, but this analogy falls apart when considering that the CEO is not subject to separation of legislative powers. A CEO can be thought of as a kind of king, although the stockholders and board of directors may challenge that power. A POTUS, however, has constitutional separation of powers. Judge Napolitano refers to presidential discretion in enforcing laws or setting priorities consistent with the laws as written and passed. Executive orders related to these aspects of executing the laws as passed are reasonably assumed even though not specified in the Constitution.
Threatening to veto legislation proposed by the three Senators Paul, Cruz, and Lee to postpone implementation of the law as passed is bizarre in light of the stated intent to postpone it by executive fiat instead. Passing a law to change a prior law's implementation date is constitutional. Postponing it by executive order is not.
How many examples of diktat must come about for people to recognize tyranny already delivered?