In the United States, this is technically possible but in practice rare to non-existent. The more common option is for a person to hold a position in one Agency and then be temporarily detailed to another Agency (say for a year) to work on a specific project.
"No" a person is not work in two different branches of government at the same time
The branches of government in 1787 are the same ones that exist today: the executive, judicial, and legislative branches.
No
Same as the federal government.
Mostly not
The three branches of Colorado's State Government are the same as the federal governments branches. They are legislative, judicial, and the executive branch.
The use of three different branches of government is an example of what is known as checks and balances. Each branch has some capacity to correct errors or abuses that are committed by the other two branches. Thus, the government becomes self correcting, at least in theory. (In practice, all 3 branches can be dysfunctional at the same time.)
The use of three different branches of government is an example of what is known as checks and balances. Each branch has some capacity to correct errors or abuses that are committed by the other two branches. Thus, the government becomes self correcting, at least in theory. (In practice, all 3 branches can be dysfunctional at the same time.)
They are similar because the branches have diffrent names but they mean the same thing. I think..
Because Each Branch has a specific function. And each of the functions has supporting jobs to achieve that function. And each of those jobs cost money, so having different branches allows the Person in Charge" to control the Budget to achieve its function It's the same reason we have different branches of Government.
Afghanistan's government has same as USA's government. Both have three branches.
to make sure all the branches of government have the same amount of power
to make sure all the branches of government have the same amount of power