4 ms·
It’s an agreement to change the rules, obviously. So I don’t quite see what other form this should or even could take. And, FWIW, some back-and-forth with the
by KarlKemp 4y ago
It’s an agreement to change the rules, obviously. So I don’t quite see what other form this should or even could take.
And, FWIW, some back-and-forth with the constitutional court is entirely normal and expected. It’s not a crime or otherwise dubious to have a difference of opinion on the most complicated legal issues.
- turbinerneiter 4y agoI very strongly disagree with your second paragraph. All the laws I know of in Germany that had trouble with the constitutional court were highly dubious. I think a law overturned by the constitutional court should be the end of a ploticians career or at least be the first strike. It's a complete failure to uphold the very thing they are sworn into an it's a complete failure in their own profession. I can see that there might be complicated legal issues were my opinion would be wrong, but the stuff I know about (data retention laws and fission fuel tax) were absolutely abhorrent displays of incompetence and disrespect of the constitution.
- twoneurons 4y agoAgreed. Legislation should be clearly within the consitition, beyond any doubt. Back and forth with the constitutional tribunal pushes the boundaries of the constitution, and risks the tribunal conceding. In addition, the tribunal many times can't enforce violations of the spirit of the constitution, only blatant concrete breaches. And remember, the constitution was an agreement signed by many groups, and every single clause of it represents the result of negotiations and struggles. Changing the constitution means overriding that consensus.