(Lawmaking; 06-02; p.5)
Consequences for future law-making
Decisions of the Constitutional Court are final,
they become part of the history of legal interpretations. To avoid
similar difficulties in the future, two ways can be thought of
On the one hand, motions with federal implications
which are discussed controversially between the political parties
could be "harmonised" in the first place. This way making
sure that they will pass all deciding bodies, i.e. the federal
parliament and the Bundesrat and if needed the mediating committee,
But doing this, one would give up a balanced federalism for party
politics: not specifically weighed interests of the "Länder",
but decisions of political parties were in the centre, given the
German conditions of party bloc-voting and mandates stemming from
Regarding legitimacy one may ask then, whether the right of the
respective parliamentary elected minister-president to conceptualise
and put through policies will not be undermined. He would still
act with democratic legitimacy - he is elected by people elected
-, but could put through policies of his Land only if the balance
of party powers on the federal level does not stand against it.
A way out of this could only be the second possible
solution: making sure that decisions will be brought about in
the favour of the respective government of the Land in due time.
A minister-president had if needed to choose appropriate delegates
or to cancel coalition treaties.
So, at least one could avoid that party interests overrule the
interests of the Länder in the Bundesrat. Conflicts however, had
to be solved then within the Länder and could not be transferred
to other bodies or people responsible.
- If the motion is one that can be vetoed by the Bundesrat only
temporarily, eventually parties would decide again, since it will
be decided thereafter again in the federal parliament.
(End of article)