One of the first things we learned in history and politics in school is that the worst thing you can do is the separation of power and NEVER EVER combining any of Executive, Legislature or Judiciary, because that's what distinguishes authoritarian from democratic systems.
It is something so basic and fundamental that every person here has to learn it and what it means as a child. Every politician hast to have a deep understanding of why that is so fundamentally important, else he really shouldn't be entrusted with any kind of political position in any kind of republic.
It's something that is known since the antique and has been strengthened by any bad government that appeared throughout history, so how is it that such a law (or actually anti-law) is possible and not uniformly rejected in first place?
The idea of separation of power has, I believe, a flaw. Instead of considering the branches co-equal, it should be considered that the primary job of both the Legislative and Judicial is to limit the power of the Executive.
It should be obvious, but there was never any danger of the Judicial or Legislative to have too much power for itself.
At the moment, the Supreme Court/Judiciary is being usurped by by the use of secret FISA court as a sort of rival supreme court. The Legislature is essentially viewed with contempt and lied to with impunity by by the executive(Clapper, Alexander, etc.)
It is something so basic and fundamental that every person here has to learn it and what it means as a child. Every politician hast to have a deep understanding of why that is so fundamentally important, else he really shouldn't be entrusted with any kind of political position in any kind of republic.
It's something that is known since the antique and has been strengthened by any bad government that appeared throughout history, so how is it that such a law (or actually anti-law) is possible and not uniformly rejected in first place?