The "Dream Act" was rejected by Congress and effectively created by executive order in directing the execution of existing immigration law. Technically it was legal, but it was nonetheless a direct circumvention of the will of Congress.
As to your "understanding of executive powers, mine is rooted in the Constitution," even though you are willing to descrive Obama's actions as "governing by executive order," which most certainly is not in the constitution.
Article 2, Section 3 reads in part: "he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,"
So when the law as passed by Congress says that the employer mandate shall take effect in 2014 and Obama declares on his own authority that it be delayed until 2016, is he “taking Care that the Laws are being faithfully executed?”
When the law as passed by Congress says that Medicare Advantage funding is cut by $200 billion in the ACA and Obama declares on his own authority that that cut be cancelled, is he “taking Care that the Laws are being faithfully executed?”
"...my opposition to an act/action does not delegitimize the act/action." When I said you would be screaming bloody murder, I did not mean you would dislike it, I meant you would be claiming it was illegal, and my selection of example was deliberate because when Bush made such an executive order Democrats did scream bloody murder about the illegality of the order and about the "imperial overreach" involved in him making it.
We are not talking about preferences, likes or dislikes. For what it's worth, I too, like the orders being issued by Obama, but I cannot and will not defend the process because there will not always be a Democratic president making orders which I like. Sooner or later there will be a Republican president issuing orders which I dislike. He will cite the precedent set by Obama and you and I will be rendered powerless to object.
= new reply since forum marked as read