That's what puzzles me about your executive branch. I assume that there are enough checks and balances within the oval office to keep a lid on a loose cannon. One or the other houses would block any foolishness yes?
In theory, yes, it prevents dictatorship.
2 things, though:
Our president can enact an 'executive order', which I believe cannot be opposed, from the little I've read on their operation they work as a king's edict. Other branches are in control of funding, so perhaps that can be used to cripple an order? All presidents have used them, they often don't get fanfare unless egregious.
Following what saforwardlook said:
The bigger problem is not partisan politics, but rather the 'working both sides of the aisle' crap that politicians spew about in order to get re-elected. 'Working' suggests compromise or sacrifice of something you want on both sides, but in reality it means porkbarreling things the other guy wants in a law also. Our laws aren't about 1 thing, they have a whole bunch of unrelated crap in there to get buy-in votes from people in the other camp. And the camp trying to sell a law, they want it passed, of course, so they are constantly counting up votes and buying individuals by giving each one of them something. End result - instead of a law that says 'replace the farm truck's aging 318 with parts-store reman' you get something like...
"New truck to be purchased at full price from Joe's constituents and assigned to shopping mall security (to accompany the 87 that are already there). Vehicle to be converted to Biodiesel as green initiative via a new govt grant by Bill's constituents . 12 sets of Michelins to be purchased from Tom's and stored in his facililty at $50/month until needed. 318 to be replaced by 408 stroker from Jack's and installed in farm truck. Farm truck to be made scrap by Ed's to meet EPA initiatives. $98,687 spent. As for the farmer's needs, well, non-partisan politics at work...
End result - you get a moronic statement like 'we'll just have to pass this law to see what's in it', because none of them know all the crap they threw in the soup. And most Americans are too busy making the most of their lives (or complaining about them!) to research it in its unadulterated version, so we just watch the media's biased sound-bites. Even if we knew, it's too late to do anything about it.
IHMO, as long as we have 1 camp mainly wanting to give all the money to people (hoping we'll spend it back into the economy), and the other camp mainly giving money to big business (hoping people will earn money to spend) - we're never gonna have agreement. I view 1 as lesser of evils, with principles more likely to result in a man will learn to fish -- but both groups have sold out their principles in order to get/stay in power.
