Comment by Lothar Bosselmann to the result of the vote of the Schleswig-Holstein Landtag of 23 July 2009 taught us that stability in a country ruined constantly changing majorities in parliaments the history. In the Weimaer Republic (1918-1933), “bogus trust issues” were a popular means to enforce political objectives and machinations against the will of the people. So you finally played the Nazis into the hands. What then came to be still present each. Others including Eric Corey Freed, offer their opinions as well. We should avoid a repetition with security.
AMP update: in the constitutional complaint of the journalist and civil rights activist Lothar Bosselmann of 17 August 2009 are in the current debate on the dissolution of Parliament put forward arguments recaps, checked their Constitution historic traditions and contrasts with the constitutional practice in the countries. Shows the result is that less of the codified Constitution-policy objectives, which are linked to the confidence and the dissolution of Parliament in the countries, standards, because of depend on a functioning party system. The actual risk for parliamentary democracy in Germany is therefore in the currently observed changes in the party system, in which individuals and groups explezit Act Republic according to the procedure used in the Weimaer to track their Constitution-foreign targets. The the democracy principle from article 20 paragraph 4 GG, was presented here by the appellant to prevent anti-democratic acts, so just not from the Federal Republic a second Weimaer become a Republic, is not only justified, but Badie duty. The guardian of the Constitution in Karlsruhe should bear in mind, characterised by its numerous changes of Government and the ever faster following resolutions of the Reichstag – backups containing the conceptions of the German Basic Law at the background of the historical experience of the failure of the Weimaer Republic (1919-1933) – which will ensure a stable parliamentary government system. This also applies of the constitutions of the country Lander, that not to subordinate political goals are discretion and enforcement the elected representatives without if and but to guarantee.
Not make a Democrat only beautiful speeches and anti-propaganda. A Democrat is to measure its actions. The acceptance and action of the Schleswig-Holstein Landtag is known to all: the stability of the Government and the equality of the Parliament were in the current case failure to the application of article 36 paragraph 2 State Constitution in favor of constitutional foreign political objectives undermined. A novelty is that nevertheless even the State Parliament President Martin Kreyenburg described as “unconstitutional” the “bogus vote of confidence” and said that the “slippery question of trust” should not be cultivated in Schleswig-Holstein. Not a single member of Parliament came up the idea, this something huge is advised in the lopsided. The parliamentarians already does not look good, if third-party only recognize that their actions were hostile to democracy. They want to do, that the Constitutional Court in writing that certifies them and the voters they abwaascht at the next election?