For Germany 2009 was a year of constitutional anniversaries: the first democratic constitution (Paulskirchenverfassung of 1849) was promulgated 160 years ago; the 1919 Weimar Constitution would have turned 90; and finally, the country celebrated 60 years of the Basic Law, which was proclaimed and signed in Bonn on 23 May 1949. Despite its birth in the midst of economic and political turmoil and widespread disillusion with politics, the Basic Law has come to be regarded as a “success story.” As is well known, it was never meant to last – the very term “Grundgesetz” (basic law) indicated that it was intended to serve as a temporary constitutional framework until the enactment of a new constitution for the whole of Germany. Yet the Basic Law outgrew its provisional character. Today, not only the political establishment is united in praising the Grundgesetz. The scholarly assessment also has been mostly positive. The constitutional bargain struck in 1949 has been able to achieve what no previous German constitution had managed. The right and the left of the German political spectrum fashioned an enduring compromise that combined democracy, federalism and the welfare state. It is part of the story that the old anti-liberal and nationalist elite had been thoroughly delegitimized by loosing the war. Also, the Allies gave the effort an additional nudge. The progressive changes could then be implemented quite effectively by relying on the juristic culture of the Rechtsstaat that dates back to the bureaucratic legacy of, among others, the Prussian state.

The German Basic Law is a resilient constitution. It has proved able to cope with both the new beginning of the constitutional tradition in Germany after the cataclysm of 1945 and German reunification after the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989. To be sure, there is reason for some critical reflection concerning concrete questions and even fundamental issues—not the least of which is the question whether German reunification should have been marked by a process of constitutional self-reflection and renewal beyond what has been done. All in all, however, the Basic Law is, in historical perspective, a remarkable success. Therefore, it is not surprising that it has gained much international attention. Some aspects of the Basic Law have even become a kind of attractive export article not accounted for in Germany's foreign trade balance, but nevertheless of considerable importance.

The Basic Law, whose 60th anniversary we celebrate today, is not identical with the Constitution that was enacted on 23 May 1949. In the sixty years of its existence, it has been amended fifty-four times. Further amendments are under way. Many amendments concerned more than just one article. A little more than half of the 146 articles of the original text still read as they were framed in 1949. However, twenty-six of these unchanged articles are part of the “Transitional and Concluding Provisions.” A number of them were limited to one singular act of application, such as Art. 136 I (“The Bundesrat [Federal Council] shall convene for the first time on the day the Bundestag [national parliament] first convenes.”), and lost their normative value with the completion of the given act. A little less than half of the original articles, and the Preamble, have been subject to amendments; some of them several times. The forerunner is Art. 106 (apportionment of tax revenue), with six amendments. In addition, forty-seven articles have been added to the original text, some of which were repealed later.

Sociology of law usually applies three basic distinctions that also can be applied to the analysis of the Grundgesetz (Basic Law or constitution).

This birthday gives rise to many considerations. Some reflect upon achievements – the German constitution, named “Basic Law”, has proven to work although many did not believe in it when it was framed. Others emphasize desiderata. Sabine Berghahn commented at the 50th birthday that it has developed “far too slowly and [some] has even gone completely wrong.” Jutta Limbach, former President of the Federal Constitutional Court, observed that constitutional history was “anything but regal, but very difficult and full of obstacles.” Former Chancellor Willy Brandt famously called the constitution “a snail on thin ice.” So what is missing when we analyze the Basic Law, and what should be finally added - as spirit, in interpretation, in clarifying words? I will try to point to achievements and show what might still be lacking. This is what studies in constitutionalism always do. To do justice to the occasion, I will also think about who we should invite to celebrate this birthday. More precisely, if we are to celebrate the 60th birthday of Article 3 of the Basic Law, which is the equality guarantee, and which has been amended since its birthday, I will encourage you to think about who should come to this party.

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.”

Sixty years after the entry into force of the Basic Law the world is much more interdependent. The concepts of statehood and sovereignty have changed. The following contribution examines how the Basic Law, as amended and interpreted by the Federal Constitutional Court, deals with this development. As a foundational matter, the Basic Law contains a commitment towards integration, although sixty years ago integration largely was seen as a promise. Now, 60 years later, the Federal Constitutional Court is developing limits to integration and recently ruled out Germany's participation in a European Federal State and sees itself as the guardian of German sovereignty. A change of paradigms seems to have taken place. For the founding fathers and mothers, a united—possibly even federal—Europe was considered to be the solution to protect against war and relapse towards an undemocratic, terroristic regime. But now the Federal Constitutional Court feels compelled to protect democracy and the core values of the Basic Law against “too much” European integration.