U.S presidents have been giving out executive orders since 1789. Why? Because they can. And executive order is a law made instantly with the president's signature. The advantage for a president is that it doen't have to through Congress, the disadvantage, say critics is that it doesn't have to go through Congress. And some critics say use of the executive order may violate the Constitutional separation of powers. In fact, the term executive order isn't in the Constitution. What is in article two, section three is that the president shall take care of that the laws be faithfully executed. So if a president feels that Congress isn't failthfully executing the laws he wants, he can issue an executive order. They do their limits though, executive orders can't use federal money for one thing. President couldn't use one that cut taxes or build a bridge for example. The orders can't be overturned by a court, and the next president can get rid of a previous order. Presidents aren't shy about giving new ones though. According to the National Archives, two-term president Bill Clinton gave 364 executive orders. Two-term president George W.Bush gave 291. President Obama is on the same pace, having given 144 in his first term. President Roosevelt holds the record, he gave over 3700 executive orders, though he did have longer than everyone else in the White House. Bottom line, love him or hate him, we all have to live under them at least for a while. Why? Well, that's an order.

"I've said it for seven years, I've said it for longer than seven years, I have never doped. I can say it again, but I've said it for seven years, it doesn't help. Why would I then enter into a sport and dope myself up and risk my life again, that's crazy, I would never do that. That's no, no way."

That was Lance Armstrong in 2005, he spend more than a decade saying things like that, denying that he cheated during his cycling career. This week, he said something different. According to new reports, during an interview with Oprah Winfrey, Armstrong admitted to doping, to using performance enhancing drugs. That interview was airing later this week, the reaction on social media was fast and a lot of it was angry.

One person said this guy is a loser and a liar. Another posted, he had the opportunity to be honest from the begining, winning was more important. Why is news getting such an intense reaction? Well, the answer might come from looking at how Lance Armstrong got here. Right as his cycling career was taking off, Armstrong was diagnosed with cancer. It spread to his lungs, stomach and brain, after a surgery in late 1996, he was told was cancer free. The next year he helped creat the Livestrong foundation, its goal was to benefit cancer research and cancer patients. You've probably seen people wearing the yellow wristbands, you might have worn one yourself. Armstrong's efforts help that foundation raise millions of dollars. In 1999, less than 3 year after he beat cancer, Armstrong won the Tour De France, then he won it again and again, a cancer survivor winning cycling's most famous race seven times in a row. And despite accusations always denying that he cheated to do it. Then last year, the U.S Anti-Doping Agency released a report, it accused Armstrong of being at the center of a very sophisticated doping program while he was winning his Tour De France titles. In the report, former teammates admitted to doping and ways of beating drug tests. The International Cycling Union then stripped Lance Armstrong of all seven Tour De titles and banned him from professional cycling for life. Armstrong denied the allegations through all of it, until this week. 

Well, this is something we're talking about on our blog, in the court of public opinion, Lance Armstrong is in deep trouble. And the question we're asking is will the public ever forgive him? do you think the public ever should forgive him?