A gridlocked political system is not guaranteed to create "good legislation" as Scalia puts it, take US as a prime example of that, almost every legislation is packed with pork and other things unrelated to the legalisation itself.
To Scalia defence he might have meant "not awful legislation", like avoid harming a minority, because of the bicameral legislature. But good legislation? No.
It is true that in Europe it is common to mix the legislative and the executive with the same election and thus chamber. However in Sweden the executive power is divided in half, with the elected prime minister with his cabinet (regeringen) on the one hand and the independent government agencies (myndigheter) on the other. This is a separation of powers that US doesn't have.
And it is in the executive that has the highest risk of political corrupt behaviour, because it deals with all the practical details of running a country, therefore separating the executive into two separate branches, the elected and the civil servants, creates better protection against political corruption.
Scalia main argument is that US can't become the Soviet union because of the bicameral gridlock built into the system, however what we have seen in the US when the legislature is politically paralyzed is that the executive, and to some extent the judiciary, has encroached on the legislative powers.
How many of the wars that US has been involved in since the second world war has been formally approved constitutionally by the senate? Zero.
Did President Obama execute a US citizen without a trial? Yes.
This is a gap in Scalias argument, the executive power is too unrestricted, hence it is the US executive power that will be removing citizen rights from the citizenry, not the legislature.
Let's remember that Scalia was a judge, not a political theorist or a legislative expert. Scalia's expertise would be the operation of the judiciary, courtrooms, etc.
> However in Sweden the executive power is divided in half, with the elected prime minister with his cabinet (regeringen) on the one hand and the independent government agencies (myndigheter) on the other. This is a separation of powers that US doesn't have.
The US does have not have this. That's why Biden couldn't fire the postmaster general, or the fed chair, or numerous other posts. Yes, the
President fills the leadership roles when they are available, but they don't totally control many agencies.
Compare the US Department of Justice with the equivalent in Sweden, in Sweden that would be split in multiple different organisations first with Departement of Justice, headed by the minister of Justice (elected politician) and a staff of civil servants, but they don't handle any criminal cases.
Thus there is several other government agencies like Riksåklagare (Prosecutor-General), Polismyndigheten (Police Authority), Säkerhetspolisen (Security Service), Ekobrottsmyndigheten (Economic Crime Authority) etc all independently governed by civil servants.
This is a central part of the Swedish constitution and is tradition that dates back several hundred years.
A gridlocked political system is not guaranteed to create "good legislation" as Scalia puts it, take US as a prime example of that, almost every legislation is packed with pork and other things unrelated to the legalisation itself.
To Scalia defence he might have meant "not awful legislation", like avoid harming a minority, because of the bicameral legislature. But good legislation? No.
It is true that in Europe it is common to mix the legislative and the executive with the same election and thus chamber. However in Sweden the executive power is divided in half, with the elected prime minister with his cabinet (regeringen) on the one hand and the independent government agencies (myndigheter) on the other. This is a separation of powers that US doesn't have.
And it is in the executive that has the highest risk of political corrupt behaviour, because it deals with all the practical details of running a country, therefore separating the executive into two separate branches, the elected and the civil servants, creates better protection against political corruption.
Scalia main argument is that US can't become the Soviet union because of the bicameral gridlock built into the system, however what we have seen in the US when the legislature is politically paralyzed is that the executive, and to some extent the judiciary, has encroached on the legislative powers.
How many of the wars that US has been involved in since the second world war has been formally approved constitutionally by the senate? Zero.
Did President Obama execute a US citizen without a trial? Yes.
This is a gap in Scalias argument, the executive power is too unrestricted, hence it is the US executive power that will be removing citizen rights from the citizenry, not the legislature.