Talk:Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany

message: Perhaps it would be possible to insert where the "Basic Law" was signed: in Villa Rothschild (which was still owned by the Rothschild family at that time). It is therefore called the "cradle of the German constitution and the Federal Republic".
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Villa_Rothschild#Geschichte
Thanks!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8109:B40:2258:4C21:8479:5A4A:16BC (talk) 01:30, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Place of origin

message: Talk:Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany/Archive 1 - Talk prior to 2006-12-03
I have taken the liberty to move the Talk page to an archive page so current talk issues do net get cluttered up with past discussions - frankly trying to understand what some of the past discussions were about at all scrambles my brain.
This does of course not meant to imply any past discussion should not be continued if someone wishes to - but it'd more readable to start with a new talk page IMO. - Tschild 22:38, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Archived talk pages

message: Which disputes need to be resolved so we can remove the disputed tag? - Tschild 11:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There aren't any. Go ahead. ProhibitOnions (T) 13:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As nobody else has piped up I have removed the tag. Tschild 07:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: So, what are the remaining disputes?

message: Are the courts that aren't the Bundesverfassungsgericht mentioned in the Basic Law? 220.253.0.37 09:46, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Articles 92 to 103 also contain provisions for the work of the ordinary courts (e.g. rights of the accused). I'll try to expand the article on that matter. Tschild 16:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have got around to it now. Better late than never  Tschild (talk) 10:55, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Are are the ordinary courts mentioned?

message: The article notes that the basic law was not approved by Bavaria before it came into force.  Did Bavaria approve it later, or did it apply to all the states if a minimum number of them approved? --Jfruh (talk) 02:45, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bavaria? 

message: "Germany finally reunified when the GDR peacefully joined the West German Federal Republic of Germany"
WRONG:
the GDR did not join the Federal Republic, the five states (Länder) Saxony, Saxony-Anhalt, Brandenburg, Mecklenburg-Western Pommerania and Thuringia did  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.164.220.128 (talk) 11:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, absolutely wrong. The GDR first joined, then it established the new states (Neue Bundesländer). Everything in one legal second. See also: http://bundesrecht.juris.de/einigvtr/art_1.html and Did the 5 states or the GDR join? --Orangerider (talk) 11:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Technically, it was the GDR that declared its accession to the Basic Law; its consituent parts joining as five new Länder.  Because Article 23 created an 'ever-open-door'; it was constitutionally essential (within the Basic Law) that the declaration of accession should conform fully to the constitutional procedures of the GDR. TomHennell (talk) 16:18, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grundgesetz and Reunification 

message: ::"Unlike the Weimar Constitution, the Basic Law only allows referenda on a single issue: changing borders of the Länder."
I've looked through the wikisource text and cant find any reference to this prohibition - can anyone help me on this? ThxAndrewRT(Talk) 23:57, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Article 29 (the relevant term is Volksentscheid) in the case of new Länder or border changes among the existing Länder; Article 20 only states that the law shall come from the people through votes and elections, but does not specifically mention referenda, thus there are no referenda, as there is no established provision for them. (A reform to allow referenda was tried to be passed by SPD and Greens some years ago, but failed to gain the necessary 2/3 majority.) —Nightstallion 21:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Your understanding of the article isn't completely correct. While "Wahl" refers to a vote about people (election), the word "Abstimmungen" does refere to votes about some topic (a law, dissolution of parliament). An other German word for "Volksentscheid" although is "Volksabstimmung". Thus Art. 20 doesn't prohibit referenda. It's only the case, that the Basic Law doesn't use them on federal level. If Art. 20 would explicitly prohibit referenda, it would be impossible to change the Basic Law to allow them (since Art. 20 is covered by the eternity clause in Art. 79(3)) and it would be impossible to have referenda in several states (länder) and communities (most german states actually allow referenda about laws and dissolution of parliament, even though they are rarely used). 84.162.90.239 (talk) 22:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

text: And still it is true that on the federal level, the Basic Law, for the federal lewel, allows referenda only in the abovementioned single issue. It would be possible to change that, correct, but that's how it is now. --84.154.83.151 (talk) 11:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The Art. 79 Abs. 3 neither forbids changes nor additions. It forbids the change of the priniciples stated in Art. 1 and 20. This means, you can add anything you like in those two articles, that isn't unconstitutional in itself, but that isn't protected by the eternity clause. Both articles were changed over the time, prominent example would be Art. 20 Abs. 4 GG. Normally a simple law for federal referenda would be enough, because you could stress the meaning of 'Abstimmung' to referenda, meaning it would not be needed to change the basic law for that. To play it safe, they want to go the constitutional route. -88.78.77.247 (talk) 23:44, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  referenda 

message: (Gesetz is the participle of sitzen which translates directly as to sit, but in German it assumes a wider meaning: to sit, to set or to put).
I suspect the word Gesetz, which also may be translated as "act" or "statute," stems etymologically from the "put down" sense of setzen, i.e. something put down in writing.
Why did the Bavarian Landtag not ratify the Basic Law?
It's interesting that the Constitutional Court is called the Verfassungsgericht even though the Constitution (Basic Law) is not called a Verfassung.
Sca (talk) 19:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Some clarificaions: Gesetz is NOT the participle of sitzen, it is a noun derived from sitzen and the translation is "law" or "act" - the thing with put down in writing is correct.
-> The Bavarian Landtag did not ratify the Basic Law because their opinion was, that it concentrates the power too much on the federal site an weakens the competences of the single states. Bavaria in Germany is a little bit what Texas is in the US. If they can't dominate the countries politics they dream of becoming independent.
-> The fact why the Basic Law isn't called a "Verfassung" had a simple reason: the German separation. The ideology of Western Germany was, that it isn't a complete state without the eastern parts and therefore it doesn't need a "constitution" And it was a signal for the eastern part, that the west doesn't enforce the separation by creating a full state. Therefore the Basic Laws Preamble stated, that it is a provisorium until Germany is united again, then a real constitution would be drafted - however the Basic Law has proven itself to be a good constitution, so they kept it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.178.115.14 (talk) 00:25, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Gesetz

message: The Grundgesetz is not a constitution. It does not define the state, and it does not justify the source of power. That was a major point of criticism when no real constitution was drawn up after the re-unification, although the Grundgesetz was always only meant to be a provisional constitution-ish set of laws. Cush (talk) 16:15, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The Grundgesetz does perfectly define the state if it uses the term "Bundesrepublik Deutschland", and enumerates explicitly all the länder. The justifying of the source of power is better not usurped by the public power, it belongs to philosophical faculties, and papal encyclicals. --84.154.127.40 (talk) 14:10, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: What? A definition of state is not meant to define the territory but to define the delegation of power from the people to the institution of state. Why the individual is supposed to transfer sovereignty to the society. Cush (talk) 19:37, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Right. And it is a value of the Basic law that it only defines what is transferred, and not why it is transferred. For the answer to the why, there is a freedom of opinion, so it can be vividly discussed by all men willing to exchange their arguments. That's why I mentioned philosophical faculties and papal encyclicals. --84.154.83.151 (talk) 11:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Constitution? 

message: How is the basic law changed/amended? Isn't this critical information that should be mentioned in the article? Rami R 20:48, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Means of changing/amending? 

message: Those few sentences in the "differences from weimar constitution" section don't explain the Basic Law's structure and meaning. For example, the article does not explain or even state the fundamental human rights or that and why they are positioned first in the text. Another example would be the "eternity clause" which exempts its fundamentals from amendments. Some parts of the Basic Law are not discussed at all. To the average german reader, this article does not grasp the fundamentals of the Basic Law at all. I'm sure you can do better. 87.176.200.219 (talk) 18:51, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the structure with putting the human rights first has some importance, but from a juridical standpoint they are just as valid in Article One as in Article Ninety-nine how the Bavarians have it. The problem of the Weimar constitution was not the structure but Article 48; and even Article 48 would not have been such a problem if it had been kept (it said something about the temporarity of acts justified by it). The eternity clause btw exempts its fundamentals only from amendment via Article 79; via a new constitution (Article 146), non-federalism for example would be possible (federalism and subsidiarity are different matters). - We can't expect that the English wp article on the Basic Law be an expression of German verfassungspatriotism.--91.34.221.236 (talk) 11:17, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  harsh criticism 

message: Is by german constitution opportunity to form minority government?--81.95.168.174 (talk) 11:35, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Even two of them. 1. A majority government loses the majority -- a party leaves a coalition, as in 1982, or a couple of politicians leave a party as in 1972. In this case, the opposition can either take over by "constructive vote of distrust", i. e. by electing a new chancellor of their own, which happened in 1982. Or there is a vote of distrust but it is not constructive, president and chancellor together may dissolve the Diet, which happened in 1972 and was, to speak in a friendly way, actively provoked in 1982 after the government change and in 2005, because it's the only way to dissolve the Diet. Or the government keeps governing; in that case there is even a Basic Law article about a "state of emergency in legislation" by virtue of which the government can legislate with the States Council against the Diet, an oddity for Germans who know that it is always the State Council which makes problems for the government. This hasn't happened yet. 2. After a federal election, two trials of electing a chancellor don't succeed. In that case, a Chancellor is elected by relative majority, and thus can form a minority government - if not the President, by his souvereign decision (one of the rare instances he has such) dissolves the Diet within a week. --91.34.195.195 (talk) 10:17, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  minority government 

message: Members of the German Bundestag shall be elected in general, direct, free, equal and secret elections. --Espoo (talk) 23:22, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, there are a lot of people in Germany who'd take your statement as even so much as an offense and then begin, with a voice a religious person would be ashamed of in religious matters as sanctimonious, to recite Article One. (Which btw is a good article.) --91.34.221.236 (talk) 11:02, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  most important part of constitution not quoted 

message: What is the amendment procedure for the Basic Law? Is there a referendum procedure? It is my understanding the traditional amendment process in Germany has been to simply pass an amendment law. Also, the article says "The denial of referendums in other cases was designed to avoid the kind of populism that allowed the rise of Hitler". I think this is not only POV and OR its wrong. Since when did Hitler hold a referendum? Didn't Hitler use the same amendment process that is used in Modern Germany, ie. a law? Int21h (talk) 12:07, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I just saw above. And I found Article 79: "The Basic law can be amended only by a law which expressly amends or supplements the text thereof." Apart from seeming like a pleonasm, it appears to have been amended 20 times or so, which I think is important. Int21h (talk) 12:31, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This is no pleonasm. An example: If you want a federal law to establish, say, some principles for primary and secondary schools, you'll find that the Federacy has no power to do so. Consequently, you have to insert a No. xy into one of the Articles 70ff. (technically, it could stand anywhere in the Basic Law) to say that the Federacy may do this, and then enact your law. In the Weimar Republic it would have been different, you would simply issue your law and hope that it gets a two-thirds majority and if it does, there would automatically be added an unseen exception to the Constitution-as-in-force. This was called not a break, but a breakthrough of the Constitution. As an example, Hitler's Enabling Act did not change the text of the constitution.--91.34.226.249 (talk) 21:46, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Amendment 

message: The important reason why the basic law is not a constitution and only a provisional thing is that the germans (which create the basic law) didn´t want to create a new state. The man carlo schmidt said that we have no reason to create a western germany because the german empire exists in borders from 1937 but the german empire is not able to act. (Borders from 1937 because of the potsdam conference from 1945)
The capitulation on 8. may 1945 was only a military. After a few weeks later the german goverment was fired by the allies and so germany had no organization. Then the allies and not we create german countries. We germans don´t need countries because we are a unit. Since 1934 we were no longer a federal state we were a state like france. In german history the many little german countries was a big problem for our nationality and that was the reason for allies to create new one. The art. 23 wasn´t for reunification, because it was deleted a few days before reunification. http://lexetius.com/GG/23#2 Art. 23 is the range of validity of the basic law. 
The allies didn´t give us our sovereignty back. That was an other important reason for only a basic law. You can see for example art. 139 this art. is the link to the allies occupation statute. Compare art. 139 with "Besatzungsstatut" under 7. the word "Rechtsvorschriften". http://www.konrad-adenauer.de/index.php?msg=4521  — Preceding unsigned comment added by German-deutsch (talk • contribs) 17:19, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You're mistaken. The entity known as Deutsches Reich between 1871 and 1945 is quite able to act, having now the name of Bundesrepublik Deutschland (see the respective Federal Constitutional Court decisions of the 1970s). The Basic Law was enacted with the claim to speak on behalf of the German People* "having also acted for those to whom participation was not possible". No allies there; no separation indeed either, but reorganization. It was meant to be put into force in these lands and this has taken place. [*No, this does not make necessary a referendum. A referendum is the voice of the majority of the people on a given question; a law by representatives is the voice of the representatives; to make either an act of the People as such, some philosophy is needed, and this philosophy does exist.] The little German countries by the way were no problem for our nationality, but only because they were of other spirit than those who, for a time, won in history (i. e. 19th century liberals); federalism, subsidiarity and organic government, as far as even we still have it, is a thing to be proud of. Nazism showed itself as thoroughly un-German (it has been called so; e. g. by Thomas Mann) when it abolished federalism.--91.34.249.41 (talk) 15:11, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some things about basic law 

message: Theres an article i8n the GG that says (from head): "The people of germany are allowed to resist any power which tries to change the fundermental laws of this constitution" And its widely accepted to interpret 'resist' very strongly here. Like: "If anyone wants to play Führer ever again, feel free to burn him at the stake, we encourage you to do so!" might be an intresting point, dont you think?
83.216.242.84 (talk) 04:21, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: That's 20(4), as quoted from http://www.bundestag.de/bundestag/aufgaben/rechtsgrundlagen/grundgesetz/gg_02.html:  "Gegen jeden, der es unternimmt, diese Ordnung zu beseitigen, haben alle Deutschen das Recht zum Widerstand, wenn andere Abhilfe nicht möglich ist." In English: "Against anyone who undertakes it to remove this order of things, all Germans have the right to resistance, if other relief is not possible." I, too, was astonished to not see it included in the article. DrTemp (talk) 06:32, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Right to resist' isnt mentioned here 

message: It is no Constitution! A Constitution is elected, the "Grundgesetz" was set by some not elected germans and the Aliets! Thats even why the german fathers of the Grundgesetz called it Basic Law! But it is one of the best democratic Laws and i am proud to be under this law!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.198.182.35 (talk) 20:35, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It is no Constitution which is apparently why the Court that judges under it is called Constitutional Court.--91.34.253.134 (talk) 13:26, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The Danish Constitution is also called "Grundlov" = "Grundgesetz" = "Basic Law", and nobody would say it is not a constitution because of the name!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:DF:3BC5:9A00:69E1:2A09:668C:5D9B (talk) 02:06, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Constitution of Germany

message: The Fundamental rights in the German Constitution are not mentioned in the article, nor is there even a link to the article about these rights. While most things the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany has to deal with are connected to that part of the Basic Law, they are only somehow indirectly mentioned in the part of the article about the Constitutional Court by some examples, but I thik this part of the article is hard to understand, if you don't know, that the Fundamental Rights are part of the Basic Law. Because the authors of the Basic Law ascribed a great importance to that Fundamental Rights they put them in the beginning and especially protected it (see Art. 20 and Art. 79). To my experience these Fundamental Rights, especially Art. 1, are the best known part of the Basic Law to Germans, and Germans would call them the most importand part of the law. --Kleiner Tümmler (talk) 21:48, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I have tried to satisfy your request. --Tri-l (talk) 09:52, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fundamental rights in the German Constitution 

message: Substituted at 09:04, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071009043103/http://www.eej-esq.com/PDFs/German_Reunification.pdf to http://www.eej-esq.com/PDFs/German_Reunification.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:07, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050825141706/http://eis.bris.ac.uk/~gemaa/10015/week4.html to http://eis.bris.ac.uk/~gemaa/10015/week4.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:48, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: — Assignment last updated by Gerichtsadler (talk) 23:43, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Legal Europe