Welcome to the new version of European Tribune. It's just a new layout, so everything should work as before - please report bugs here.
Display:
Hehe...
Article 20 [Basic institutional principles; defense of the constitutional order]

(1) The Federal Republic of Germany is a democratic and social federal state.

(2) All state authority is derived from the people. It shall be exercised by the people through elections and other votes and through specific legislative, executive, and judicial bodies.

(3) The legislature shall be bound by the constitutional order, the executive and the judiciary by law and justice.

(4) All Germans shall have the right to resist any person seeking to abolish this constitutional order, if no other remedy is available.

From Wiki:
The German government claims that a "4th paragraph" was added to Article 20 in 1968 which says, "All Germans shall have the right to resist any person seeking to abolish this constitutional order, should no other remedy be possible." However this provision is (according to the common opinion of lawyers) not protected by the eternity clause, because it was not included in this Basic Law as originally enacted. Most lawyers claim (though with basis in philosophy of law rather than in this Basic Law) that the amending legislator has no power to enlarge the eternity clause, but at any rate the words "article 20" as appearing in article 79 mean "article 20 as in force at the time article 79 was enacted," and the amending legislator did not in any way reveal an intention to put the right of resistance under the eternity clause. (That is, not by force of this Basic Law itself. If it be argued that the right to resist an illegitimate government is of natural law, then as such it would be included in the words of Article 1 paragraph 2 as given above.)
Question: what happened in 1968 that prompted the addition of this clause to the Basic Law?

If you are not convinced, try it on someone who has not been entirely debauched by economics. — Piero Sraffa
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Jun 22nd, 2012 at 07:24:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]
It was supposed to be a counter-weight to the changes of the Basic Law regarding state of emergency. Prior to 1968 there weren't any rules on a state of emergency, leaving it to the occupying powers. The right to resistance was supposed a check on governments misusing emergency powers.
by IM on Fri Jun 22nd, 2012 at 07:48:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]
by IM on Fri Jun 22nd, 2012 at 07:51:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]
So the departure of the occupying powers required state-of-emergency legislation which required some sort of right-to-resist.

If you are not convinced, try it on someone who has not been entirely debauched by economics. — Piero Sraffa
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Jun 24th, 2012 at 05:03:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The question if sentence 4 falls under the eternity clause or not is moot anyway: if we will ever use it, neither side will care. The thing is symbolic, making clear where the ultimate power belongs.
by Katrin on Fri Jun 22nd, 2012 at 08:45:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes. In a coup or civil war situation an appeal to the courts is not practicable anyway. Inter armes enim silent leges and so on.
by IM on Fri Jun 22nd, 2012 at 08:52:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Top Diaries

Pentecost steam

by DoDo - May 23
41 comments

A Nomad's Life (A Farewell)

by Nomad - May 10
14 comments

Simple Solar Principles

by gmoke - May 17
2 comments

Rail News Blogging #24

by DoDo - May 12
11 comments

Ferguson hates on Keynes

by Migeru - May 6
100 comments

Occasional Series