Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-02T14:45:38.028Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Basic Law at 60 – Politics and the Federal Constitutional Court

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 March 2019

Brigitte Zypries

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

I don't usually open my commentary by citing great words spoken by old men. But in this case I will make an exception. Ferdinand Lassalle is not only the grandfather of German social democracy; he is also the author of these words: “Constitutional issues are power issues.”

Type
Special Issue: The Basic Law at 60
Information
German Law Journal , Volume 11 , Issue 1: Special issue - The Basic Law at 60 , 01 January 2010 , pp. 87 - 98
Copyright
Copyright © 2010 by German Law Journal GbR 

References

1 Ferdinand Lassalle, Über Verfassungswesen: Rede am 16. April 1862 in Berlin (1993).Google Scholar

2 Heinrich Wefing, “Der Bonner Reflex”, Die Zeit, Apr. 30, 2009, at 19.Google Scholar

3 Id. Google Scholar

4 “This isn't the way we imagined it.” See Rolf Lamprecht, Zur Demontage des Bundesverfassungsgericht 126 (1996).Google Scholar

5 Id., at 128. German Law Journal Politics and the Constitutional CourtGoogle Scholar

6 Grundgesetz [GG-Constitution] art. 14.Google Scholar

7 BverfGE 65, 1.Google Scholar

8 BverfGE 120, 274.Google Scholar

9 See generally Grundgesetz [GG-Constitution] art. 16a.Google Scholar

10 See generally Grundgesetz [GG-Constitution] art. 13.Google Scholar

11 See BverfGE 1, 15 (guiding principle 3) (“The Federal Constitutional Court is called upon only to assess the lawfulness of a law, and not its appropriateness as well. The question of whether the Basic Law affords discretion to the legislature, and how far that discretion extends, is a legal issue to be evaluated by the Federal Constitutional Court.”).Google Scholar

12 See, e.g., BverfGE 96, 10 (23).Google Scholar

13 See, e.g., BverfGE 100, 313 (373).Google Scholar

14 See Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG-Federal Constitutional Court], Case No. 1 BvR 1155/03, para. 1 (May 5, 2009), http://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de.Google Scholar

15 See., e.g,. BverfGE 121, 266 (267) (discussing so-called negative voting values).Google Scholar

16 See., e.g., BVerfGE 114, 121 (123) (upholding the President's dissolution of the Bundestag and denying the claims of members of the German Parliament that their rights had been infringed).Google Scholar

17 See generally BVerfGE 88, 203 (providing detailed interim rules until the new law on termination of pregnancy took effect).Google Scholar

18 See BverfGE 121, 266 (267) (allowing application of the challenged law for the next election to the Bundestag).Google Scholar

19 See BverfGE 90, 286.Google Scholar

20 See BverfGE 120, 56 (74).Google Scholar

21 See BverfGE 113, 113 (114) (discussing the visa investigation committee).Google Scholar

22 See BverfGE 90, 286 (302) (regarding the enforcement by military means of the flight ban in Bosnia-Herzegovina).Google Scholar

23 Federal Chancellor Adenauer in 1961, commenting on the first judgment on radio broadcasts (Deutschlandfunk).Google Scholar