> The executive should have the power to fire/remove executive associated departments/employees, obviously. I don't actually see why this is obvious. Firing em

> The executive should have the power to fire/remove executive associated departments/employees, obviously. I don't actually see why this is obvious. Firing employees, sure, good amount of leeway there, but I fail to see why an executive should "obviously" be able to remove or hamstring a department that the legislature has passed a law creating. The entire job of the executive is to "execute" on the agenda passed by the legislature. Removing or interfering with departments doing their job is the opposite of that.