I'm watching an event on food stamps, perhaps one of the recurring fights over there, and content somewhat jaded.
Briefly, a government official asks for money from the State for amounts due in respect of food stamps, and this requirement is the adjustment of the monthly benefit. However, this does not occur.
Lawsuit against the state.
It is the fight of the judiciary, having to decide whether or not favorable to the plaintiff against the executive, who are obliged to do under penalty against the principle of legality which the State which is directly linked. All with the backing of what described and ruled by the legislature.
In a fantasy world? The plaintiff is entitled, and the judiciary, the inertia of the executive, but should have powers strong enough for the executive to abide by its obligations. Moreover, these obligations that neither should have been left out in the first place, but not complying should pay. However, all ruled by the legislature to hold everyone in its veil of twisted rules.
Perhaps therein lies the reason for such disobedience by parts of the three powers, because it is as if each were a spoiled child. Since none has power to interfere in another, then we have three children without limits. Ok, they are bound by the orders of their parents, but so what? As if we followed to the letter everything that we're told ...