(Lawmaking; 06-02; p.4)
The majority's opinion that the second round
had not happened "because the Bundesrat's president had no
right to question and absolutely not in the form, it took place"
(par. 155) could in respect to not-granting the right "not
convince" (par. 170); the implication of partiality was "not
applicable" (par. 170).
One may prove the majority's flawed conclusion
by firstly considering the following form of the argument as appropriate:
(A) If asked again, the asked have the chance to correct their
(B) Asking again was illegal;
(A+B) Thus, the correction of voting was illegal (cf. par. 169).
- In this form the conclusion is incorrect, the faulty reasoning
is named "denying the antecedent": just because one
of perhaps several possible conditions (A) is not given, it does
not follow that the consequence (A+B) is not.
The condition stated becomes limited by the judges' majority as
follows: instead of "if asked again", they set "only
if legally asked again" (cf. ibid.). - The conclusion described
above this way becomes correct; but the limitation is not allowed
in the opinion of the minority: the right to correct a vote could
"be violated, but not annihilated" (par. 169).
In addition, a Land could correct a vote until
the end of the voting process (par. 167) and the Bundesrat's president
might consider a Land to be willing to vote; therefore an undemanded
second questioning was allowed and not partial (par. 170).
The criterion established by the judges' majority that posing
a question again is to be considered illegal, if one could foresee
that an unanimous vote would not be reached during the session
(par. 143) was furthermore "everything else than clear and
therefore unsuitable as constitutional standard to measure the
behaviour of the Bundesrat's president" (par. 172; cf. also
The second round of voting had been opened by
the question of the Bundesrat's president and had closed with
a consent of the Land Brandenburg's delegate, minister-president
Stolpe; "a no-vote had not been given anymore" (par.
177), because the utterance of another Brandenburg delegate, minister
Schönbohm, was not to be considered as a clear vote (par. 178f.).
(read on here)