It's not just a technical distinction, the executive is under much stricter rules than the congress, which is only bound by the constitution (although it can also change that, with some extra steps).
The debt ceiling is a great example. The executive cannot spend what congress hasn't authorized.
I was explaining that there is no "government branch", but as someone else pointed out that may have just been a translation error.
What you say about spending is correct. And, yeah, the differences between the legislative and executive branches are important and more than technicalities.
I wouldn't say the executive branch is under "stricter rules" than the legislative branch. It just has different rules and different responsibilities.
The legislative branch creates laws.
The executive branch enforces/executes laws.
The judicial branch makes sure those laws are constitutional and identifies their limits/scope.
Of course there is some gray area as congress likes to give some of its powers to the executive branch so that they can say "that wasn't my idea" to unpopular ideas.
Rather than make a law that says "forget about all that rent from last year" they would more likely make a law that says "someone in the executive branch has the power to say: forget about all that rent"
The other route would be for the judicial branch to say the executive branch already has that power... But they just said it doesn't.
And that's how the wheel of government turns... In the US
The debt ceiling is a great example. The executive cannot spend what congress hasn't authorized.