> The executive should have the power to fire/remove executive associated departments/employees, obviously. The executive has that power—with legal constraints

> The executive should have the power to fire/remove executive associated departments/employees, obviously. The executive has that power—with legal constraints on the how and in what circumstances it can be used. These constraints exist, in large part, because of widespread corruption and abuse before they existed, when executive branch positions top to bottom were both sold corruptly and used as currency to buy favors. (They also exist because of the fundamentl role of the executive is to execute laws; policy primacy rests in the legislature, and if it determines and puts in law that a department is to exist and serve a function, then the President’s job is to make sure that happens, not overturn it because he has other preferences.) It is not an “imbalance” that the US is not set up as an executive dictatorship with an advisory legislature where Congress can pass laws but the executive branch is free not to execute them if it has other preferences.