"ERGO: this is no "executive power(s)" possible in a republic/democracy"
That's quite a rant to say little.
*I don't "rant" - I relate.
The President obviously has executive powers but he doesn't have executive powers such that for example he can tell Purpleland where your children can go to school.
The Terri Schiavo issue is not "school choice." (A sophomoric argument is a bore.)
As I said, it's not a monarchy. The president can't just make people do things because that's what he wants.
*The president's actions (e.g., veto or order)regarding the Schiavo case is not a matter making "people do things..."
Would you like him to be able to dictate things like that to you?
*Would you please elaborate on what you mean by the President being "able to dictate things..."? What "things"?
*If the president issues an executive order advocating Terri's continued living, does that mean he is a dictator?
Maybe you should move to China.
*Why?
The school choice argument is just as on point as the Terri example. Executive orders are issued with regard to government agencies, ceremonial issues or defense issues. They don't relate to individual people and cannot be in conflict with decisions of the judicial branch.
Again if you want the chief executive to be able to decree whatever strikes his fancy then I suggest again that you move to China as you appear more comfortable with government having the ability to dictate all facets of your life. In short, the reason the executive order issue hasn't been raised anyplace other than here, by you, is because it is not an option.