4 ms·

I believe youre seeing an artifact of how governance is divided. It looks like sweden (and many other parliamentary systems) puts the administration & execution

I believe youre seeing an artifact of how governance is divided. It looks like sweden (and many other parliamentary systems) puts the administration & execution of law under the direction of a minister, who’s primarily a legislator. In the USA these areas are more clearly divided. The federal legislature is comprised of a bicameral house and senate. There is a discrete executive branch charged with enforcing the law set by the legislature. The president is the head of that executive branch who enforces those laws. Thats where the aspect of specific enforcement by the president comes in.

1DRACOSEA8 6y ago
Right, because the Supreme Court didn’t ever rule against the Lincoln administration regarding the acknowledgement of a negro as a human and a citizen, which led your principled example, this dream of a divided government; when the current senate conspired with the executive to avoid jail. That’s collusion with the criminal.Back to Lincoln, he didn’t sit there and take the decision regarding the freedom of a slave released in one state, the rights of that black individual — disregarded as a human; To roam freely in every state and abolish the practice of indentured servitude, you could say Lincoln saw the writing on the wall. Just him running for office and winning big, in California, was a declaration of war on its own country to reestablish federated supremacy. The system broken a war fixed it.
VoxPelli 6y ago
That separation exists in Sweden as well. The parliament makes the laws while the government is the executive branch. But yeah, slightly different as its our prime minister who sets up the government, the parliament who picks the prime minister and the people who elects the parliament – through proportional representation. The ban on ministerial rule is an additional separation on top of the one you mention – a separation within the executive branch, that even further avoids opportunities for eg. corruption. (And confuses foreign leaders who are unfamiliar with it)
rsynnott 6y ago
The other factor is likely the US's general lack of a professional civil service leadership. The leadership of the US civil service is largely appointed, en masse, by the new president every four to eight years. This is unusual in other developed democracies; there usually is a mechanism for the executive or legislature to get rid of senior civil service officials, but doing so is controversial, very visible, and not routine.

1DRACOSEA8 6y ago

Right, because the Supreme Court didn’t ever rule against the Lincoln administration regarding the acknowledgement of a negro as a human and a citizen, which led your principled example, this dream of a divided government; when the current senate conspired with the executive to avoid jail. That’s collusion with the criminal.Back to Lincoln, he didn’t sit there and take the decision regarding the freedom of a slave released in one state, the rights of that black individual — disregarded as a human; To roam freely in every state and abolish the practice of indentured servitude, you could say Lincoln saw the writing on the wall. Just him running for office and winning big, in California, was a declaration of war on its own country to reestablish federated supremacy. The system broken a war fixed it.

VoxPelli 6y ago

That separation exists in Sweden as well. The parliament makes the laws while the government is the executive branch. But yeah, slightly different as its our prime minister who sets up the government, the parliament who picks the prime minister and the people who elects the parliament – through proportional representation. The ban on ministerial rule is an additional separation on top of the one you mention – a separation within the executive branch, that even further avoids opportunities for eg. corruption. (And confuses foreign leaders who are unfamiliar with it)

rsynnott 6y ago

The other factor is likely the US's general lack of a professional civil service leadership. The leadership of the US civil service is largely appointed, en masse, by the new president every four to eight years. This is unusual in other developed democracies; there usually is a mechanism for the executive or legislature to get rid of senior civil service officials, but doing so is controversial, very visible, and not routine.