16 Juni 2021
,

Corona Constitutional #60: Jetzt also auch in Kanada?

Kanada, die andere große Demokratie in Nordamerika, wo es so viel friedlicher, freundlicher und, ja, demokratischer zugeht als drunten in den USA – sollte man meinen. Aber im größten Bundesstaat Ontario gibt es einen Regierungschef namens Doug Ford, der gelegentlich mit Donald Trump verglichen wird und jetzt etwas ganz Außerordentliches getan hat: Kurzerhand lies er durch Parlamentsbeschluss ein Gerichtsurteil suspendieren, das ein von seiner Mehrheit im Parlament in Toronto beschlossenes Gesetz zur Wahlkampffinanzierung für verfassungswidrig erklärt hatte. So etwas geht in Kanada. Über die so genannte Notwithstanding Clause in der kanadischen Verfassung, die genau das ermöglicht, spricht Max Steinbeis mit CARISSIMA MATHEN, Professorin für Verfassungsrecht an der Universität von Ottawa.
START THE DISCUSSION

Leave A Comment

WRITE A COMMENT

1. We welcome your comments but you do so as our guest. Please note that we will exercise our property rights to make sure that Verfassungsblog remains a safe and attractive place for everyone. Your comment will not appear immediately but will be moderated by us. Just as with posts, we make a choice. That means not all submitted comments will be published.

2. We expect comments to be matter-of-fact, on-topic and free of sarcasm, innuendo and ad personam arguments.

3. Racist, sexist and otherwise discriminatory comments will not be published.

4. Comments under pseudonym are allowed but a valid email address is obligatory. The use of more than one pseudonym is not allowed.

09 April 2021
,

Corona Constitutional #59: Föderalismus – Teil des Problems oder Teil der Lösung?

Der Föderalismus hat in Zeiten der Corona-Pandemie in der deutschen Öffentlichkeit nicht die beste Presse. Die Ministerpräsidentenkonferenz ist mittlerweile zum Sinnbild deutscher Uneinigkeit und Unentschlossenheit geworden. Sehnsucht nach zentralistischer Machtkonzentration gab es schon immer; in Krisenzeiten werden die Stimmen aber lauter. Was ist dran an der aktuellen Föderalismusskepsis? Was funktioniert in anderen Bundesstaaten besser und warum? Haben zentralistisch organisierte Staaten wirklich ein besseres Krisenmanagement? Darüber spricht Max Steinbeis mit FRANCESCO PALERMO, Professor für Vergleichendes Verfassungsrecht an der Universität Verona und Leiter des Instituts für Föderalismusforschung am EURAC Research Center in Bozen.
START THE DISCUSSION

Leave A Comment

WRITE A COMMENT

1. We welcome your comments but you do so as our guest. Please note that we will exercise our property rights to make sure that Verfassungsblog remains a safe and attractive place for everyone. Your comment will not appear immediately but will be moderated by us. Just as with posts, we make a choice. That means not all submitted comments will be published.

2. We expect comments to be matter-of-fact, on-topic and free of sarcasm, innuendo and ad personam arguments.

3. Racist, sexist and otherwise discriminatory comments will not be published.

4. Comments under pseudonym are allowed but a valid email address is obligatory. The use of more than one pseudonym is not allowed.

23 März 2021
, , ,

Corona Constitutional #58: Workshop: Verfassungsrechtliche Expertise im politischen Raum

Im politischen Raum wird regelmäßig verfassungsrechtliche Expertise angefragt. Da die Verfassung den rechtlichen Rahmen für den politischen Betrieb vorgibt (oder jedenfalls vorgeben soll), ist das ebenso nachvollziehbar wie notwendig. Verfassungsrechtliche Expertise und rechtswissenschaftliche Argumente werden dadurch Teil des politischen Diskurses und Meinungskampfes. Dies gilt natürlich auch für andere wissenschaftliche Disziplinen, im öffentlichen Recht ist dies aber angesichts des Gegenstands des Faches besonders oft der Fall. Das Verdikt der Verfassungswidrigkeit kann und wird in der Praxis als politisches Argument genutzt, in einer Weise, die sich regelmäßig der Kontrolle der Autor_in entzieht. In der Praxis werden verfassungsrechtliche Argumente etwa nicht selten durch unvollständige oder falsche Wiedergabe entstellt und/oder von Teilen des politischen Spektrums in Anspruch genommen, deren Zielen die Autor_in selbst fern steht. Beispiele für eine nicht unproblematische Nutzung wissenschaftlicher Argumente in der politischen Praxis sind etwa die Debatte der vergangenen Jahre über den Umgang mit der europäischen Flüchtlingskrise. Unter dem Begriff der “Herrschaft des Unrechts” wurden hier verfassungsrechtliche Argumente ins Feld geführt, obwohl die verfassungsrechtliche Situation alles andere als eindeutig war. Jüngere Beispiele betreffen die Maßnahmen zur Eindämmung der Pandemie. Dies gibt der Verfassungsrechtswissenschaft Anlass, sich selbst über die Rolle von verfassungsrechtlicher Expertise im politischen Raum zu vergewissern und darüber mit der Politik sowie mit der Medienöffentlichkeit das Gespräch zu suchen. Die Teilnehmer_innen sind:
  • Renate Künast (Bündnis 90/Die Grünen), Konstantin Kuhle (FDP) und Günter Krings (CDU/CSU)
  • Anna Katharina Mangold (Universität Flensburg) und Daniel Thym (Universität Konstanz)
  • Gudula Geuther (Deutschlandfunk) und Patrick Bahners (FAZ)
START THE DISCUSSION

Leave A Comment

WRITE A COMMENT

1. We welcome your comments but you do so as our guest. Please note that we will exercise our property rights to make sure that Verfassungsblog remains a safe and attractive place for everyone. Your comment will not appear immediately but will be moderated by us. Just as with posts, we make a choice. That means not all submitted comments will be published.

2. We expect comments to be matter-of-fact, on-topic and free of sarcasm, innuendo and ad personam arguments.

3. Racist, sexist and otherwise discriminatory comments will not be published.

4. Comments under pseudonym are allowed but a valid email address is obligatory. The use of more than one pseudonym is not allowed.

18 März 2021
,

Corona Constitutional #57: Reisen mit dem Digitalen Grünen Pass

Am 17. März hat die EU-Kommission einen Gesetzes-Vorschlag für ein europäisches Impfzertifikat, den sogenannten Digitalen Grünen Pass, vorgestellt. Damit sollen EU-Bürger, die eine Immunisierung, einen negativen PCR-Test oder Anti-Körper gegen das Corona-Virus nachweisen können, bald wieder innerhalb Europas reisen können. Vor allem Urlaubsländer wie Österreich und Griechenland hatten sich für den Digitalen Grünen Pass eingesetzt. Seit Wochen gibt es bereits Diskussion darüber, wie ein europäisches Impfzertifikat aussehen könnte und ob eine solche Maßnahme mit den EU-Grundrechten vereinbar wäre. Diese Fragen diskutiert Luise Quaritsch mit WALTHER MICHL. Er ist Habilitand am Institut für Politik und Öffentliches Recht der LMU München und er Associate Editor des Verfassungsblogs, zuständig für Europarechtsthemen.
START THE DISCUSSION

Leave A Comment

WRITE A COMMENT

1. We welcome your comments but you do so as our guest. Please note that we will exercise our property rights to make sure that Verfassungsblog remains a safe and attractive place for everyone. Your comment will not appear immediately but will be moderated by us. Just as with posts, we make a choice. That means not all submitted comments will be published.

2. We expect comments to be matter-of-fact, on-topic and free of sarcasm, innuendo and ad personam arguments.

3. Racist, sexist and otherwise discriminatory comments will not be published.

4. Comments under pseudonym are allowed but a valid email address is obligatory. The use of more than one pseudonym is not allowed.

03 März 2021
,

Corona Constitutional #56: Wer gewinnt?

EU-Mitgliedstaaten, die ihre Justiz unterjochen, verletzen EU-Recht: das hat der EuGH in Luxemburg mit seinem gestrigen Urteil zum polnischen Nationalen Justizrat kraftvoll deutlich gemacht. Die PiS-Regierung in Polen darf nicht einfach den Rechtsbehelf gegen Entscheidungen des von ihr kontrollierten Justizrat mit einem gesetzgeberischen Federstrich abschaffen. Der Kanal zwischen unabhängigen polnischen Gerichten und dem EuGH muss offen bleiben – und gleichzeitig versucht die PiS verzweifelt, diesen Kanal zuzustopfen. Wer wird das Rennen gewinnen? Darüber diskutiert Max Steinbeis heute mit dem Verfassungsrechtsprofessor WOJCIECH SADURSKI von der Universität Sydney.

START THE DISCUSSION

Leave A Comment

WRITE A COMMENT

1. We welcome your comments but you do so as our guest. Please note that we will exercise our property rights to make sure that Verfassungsblog remains a safe and attractive place for everyone. Your comment will not appear immediately but will be moderated by us. Just as with posts, we make a choice. That means not all submitted comments will be published.

2. We expect comments to be matter-of-fact, on-topic and free of sarcasm, innuendo and ad personam arguments.

3. Racist, sexist and otherwise discriminatory comments will not be published.

4. Comments under pseudonym are allowed but a valid email address is obligatory. The use of more than one pseudonym is not allowed.

19 Februar 2021
,

Corona Constitutional #55: Ein solidarischer Shutdown

Seit bald einem Jahr scheinen Deutschland und viele andere vor allem europäische Staaten von einem Lockdown zum nächsten zu stolpern, ohne die Corona-Pandemie wirklich in den Griff zu bekommen. Trotz des Impfstarts ist ein Ende dieses Hin und Her erst einmal nicht in Sicht – oder doch? Vor etwa einem Monat hat eine Initiative einen Appell unter dem Schlagwort „ZeroCovid“ veröffentlicht, die einen solidarischen europäischen Shutdown fordert. DANIEL LOICK ist Associate Professor für Politische und Sozialphilosophie und assoziierter Forscher am Frankfurter Institut für Sozialforschung und einer der Erstunterzeichner des Appells. Mit ihm spricht Evin Dalkilic über die „ZeroCovid“-Strategie, wie man sich ihre Umsetzung ohne autoritäre staatliche Maßnahmen vorstellen kann und wieso wir dabei gerade von marginalisierten Communities lernen können. Initiative „ZeroCovid“ | Beitrag von Daniel Loick in analyse & kritik
START THE DISCUSSION

Leave A Comment

WRITE A COMMENT

1. We welcome your comments but you do so as our guest. Please note that we will exercise our property rights to make sure that Verfassungsblog remains a safe and attractive place for everyone. Your comment will not appear immediately but will be moderated by us. Just as with posts, we make a choice. That means not all submitted comments will be published.

2. We expect comments to be matter-of-fact, on-topic and free of sarcasm, innuendo and ad personam arguments.

3. Racist, sexist and otherwise discriminatory comments will not be published.

4. Comments under pseudonym are allowed but a valid email address is obligatory. The use of more than one pseudonym is not allowed.

29 Januar 2021
,

Corona Constitutional #54: Migrationsquote und „Bestenauslese“

Menschen mit Migrationshintergrund werden bei gleicher Eignung bevorzugt eingestellt. Das soll nach dem Willen der Berliner Integrationssenatorin in der Bundeshauptstadt für den öffentlichen Dienst Gesetzeslage werden, und unter dem Stichwort „Migrationsquote“ ist darüber ein heftiger verfassungsrechtlicher Streit entbrannt. Das Grundgesetz schreibt gleichen Zugang zum Staatsdienst für alle vor – was heißt das in einer Situation, wo es Menschen migrantischer Herkunft so viel schwerer haben, von diesem Zugangsrecht Gebrauch zu machen? Reicht es da, die individuelle Grundrechtsposition der jeweiligen Bewerber_in in den Blick zu nehmen? Darüber redet Max Steinbeis heute mit EMILIA ROIG, Gründerin und Leiterin des Center for Intersectional Justice in Berlin.

START THE DISCUSSION

Leave A Comment

WRITE A COMMENT

1. We welcome your comments but you do so as our guest. Please note that we will exercise our property rights to make sure that Verfassungsblog remains a safe and attractive place for everyone. Your comment will not appear immediately but will be moderated by us. Just as with posts, we make a choice. That means not all submitted comments will be published.

2. We expect comments to be matter-of-fact, on-topic and free of sarcasm, innuendo and ad personam arguments.

3. Racist, sexist and otherwise discriminatory comments will not be published.

4. Comments under pseudonym are allowed but a valid email address is obligatory. The use of more than one pseudonym is not allowed.

18 Dezember 2020
,

Corona Constitutional, Folge #53: Ein Recht auf Anonymität im Internet

Die Anonymität im Internet ist unter Beschuss: Das OLG München hat in der vergangenen Woche entschieden, dass Facebook seine Nutzerinnnen und Nutzer zur Verwendung von Klarnamen zwingen kann. Immer wieder kommt auch die Forderung nach einem "digitalen Vermummungsverbot" auf, um "sozialschädliches Verhalten" einzudämmen. ERIK TUCHTFELD spricht mit JOHANNES CASPAR, dem Hamburgischen Beauftragten für Datenschutz und Informationsfreiheit, über die Bedeutung von Anonymität für die Meinungsfreiheit und Möglichkeit, trotz Anonymität auch Hassrede und Straftaten effektiv zu bekämpfen.
START THE DISCUSSION

Leave A Comment

WRITE A COMMENT

1. We welcome your comments but you do so as our guest. Please note that we will exercise our property rights to make sure that Verfassungsblog remains a safe and attractive place for everyone. Your comment will not appear immediately but will be moderated by us. Just as with posts, we make a choice. That means not all submitted comments will be published.

2. We expect comments to be matter-of-fact, on-topic and free of sarcasm, innuendo and ad personam arguments.

3. Racist, sexist and otherwise discriminatory comments will not be published.

4. Comments under pseudonym are allowed but a valid email address is obligatory. The use of more than one pseudonym is not allowed.

11 Dezember 2020
,

Corona Constitutional, Folge #52: Britische Verfassungskrise(n)

Das Brexit-Drama zwischen Brüssel und London zieht alle Blicke auf sich. Darüber übersieht man leicht den Streit über die verfassungsrechtlichen Grundpfeiler des Vereinigten Königreichs, der sich in den letzten Wochen und Monaten dramatisch zugespitzt hat – von der Rolle des Supreme Court bis zur "Devolution" in Schottland, Wales und Nordirland. Anlass genug für uns, über den aktuellen Zustand und die Entwicklung der ungeschriebenen britischen Verfassung zu sprechen. Wie hat hat sie sich im Laufe der letzten Jahre gewandelt, und ist sie den aktuellen Herausforderungen gewachsen? Darüber spricht Eva Neumann mit NICHOLAS BARBER, Professor für Verfassungsrecht und Verfassungstheorie an der Universität in Oxford.
START THE DISCUSSION

Leave A Comment

WRITE A COMMENT

1. We welcome your comments but you do so as our guest. Please note that we will exercise our property rights to make sure that Verfassungsblog remains a safe and attractive place for everyone. Your comment will not appear immediately but will be moderated by us. Just as with posts, we make a choice. That means not all submitted comments will be published.

2. We expect comments to be matter-of-fact, on-topic and free of sarcasm, innuendo and ad personam arguments.

3. Racist, sexist and otherwise discriminatory comments will not be published.

4. Comments under pseudonym are allowed but a valid email address is obligatory. The use of more than one pseudonym is not allowed.

09 Dezember 2020
, ,

LawRules #12: We need to talk about Financial Sanctions

As our podcast comes to an end, the year and the German presidency of the European Council do too. One of the foremost projects of the German presidency has been to link EU funding and compliance with rule of law standards. The mechanism is going to be a part of the next long-term budget of the Union, starting from 2021 – that is, if Hungary and Poland vote in favor of it, which is increasingly unclear at the moment, or if a way is found to circumvent their veto. The connection of rule of law violations and EU money, the advantages and shortcomings of financial sanctions for member states as well as how things stand on the current proposal – that’s what LENNART KOKOTT discusses in this week’s final episode of We Need to Talk About the Rule of Law with KIM LANE SCHEPPELE and SERGEY LAGODINSKY that we wrap up with an outlook on the current state of the Union, rule of law wise.
START THE DISCUSSION

Leave A Comment

WRITE A COMMENT

1. We welcome your comments but you do so as our guest. Please note that we will exercise our property rights to make sure that Verfassungsblog remains a safe and attractive place for everyone. Your comment will not appear immediately but will be moderated by us. Just as with posts, we make a choice. That means not all submitted comments will be published.

2. We expect comments to be matter-of-fact, on-topic and free of sarcasm, innuendo and ad personam arguments.

3. Racist, sexist and otherwise discriminatory comments will not be published.

4. Comments under pseudonym are allowed but a valid email address is obligatory. The use of more than one pseudonym is not allowed.

04 Dezember 2020
, , ,

LawRules #11: We need to talk about the European Court of Justice

The European Court of Justice has been in the middle of the European rule of law crisis for the last couple of years – and it has called out rule of law violations especially in Hungary and Poland multiple times. But the Court can’t defend the rule of law in the European Union on its own, and it needs institutional partners in this struggle. For example, it needs someone to file cases and to follow up on the Court's orders. Does the European Commission do enough on their part? Who is the guardian of the Treaties – the Commission, the Court, none of the two? The European Council is able to decide on sanctions against member states using the procedure of Article 7 TEU. But that tool has not been effective so far. Does that mean that we witness the juridification of a political conflict that puts too much of a burden on the Court?   This is what LENNART KOKOTT discusses in this week’s episode with KATARINA BARLEY, DIDIER REYNDERS and LAURENT PECH:
START THE DISCUSSION

Leave A Comment

WRITE A COMMENT

1. We welcome your comments but you do so as our guest. Please note that we will exercise our property rights to make sure that Verfassungsblog remains a safe and attractive place for everyone. Your comment will not appear immediately but will be moderated by us. Just as with posts, we make a choice. That means not all submitted comments will be published.

2. We expect comments to be matter-of-fact, on-topic and free of sarcasm, innuendo and ad personam arguments.

3. Racist, sexist and otherwise discriminatory comments will not be published.

4. Comments under pseudonym are allowed but a valid email address is obligatory. The use of more than one pseudonym is not allowed.

25 November 2020
, , ,

LawRules #10: We need to talk about the European Convention on Human Rights

Europe is larger than the EU – and a European framework aiming at preserving basic rights and freedoms as well as rule of law safeguards has been in place for 70 years precisely this November: the European Convention on Human Rights. Today, we take a deeper look at the Convention and at the institutions that work to enforce it: The European Court of Human Rights and the Venice Commission of the Council of Europe. Are they capable of adding another layer of human rights and rule of law protection to the European legal framework? What kind of support do those institutions need in order to be able to fulfil their task? And how is their status today, 70 years after the European Convention on Human Rights has been signed? This is what we’ll discuss in this week’s episode of We Need to Talk About the Rule of Law with our fantastic guests:
ONE COMMENT

One Comment

  1. Theodora Ziamou Di 8 Dez 2020 at 19:49 - Reply

    Talking about the rule of law means facing the realities of state action without muddying the waters. Exercising and accepting criticism for judgments lies at the heart of democracy and the rule of law. The fact that there are recent decisions of the ECHR which suggest that internal legal remedies work in Turkey should be a cause for concern and criticism and not for contentment. Trying to justify these decisions means ignoring the voices and testimonies worldwide explaining how non-European the court situation in Turkey really is. Encouraging lawyers to criticize autocracy should be the task of all European lawyers who believe in the rule of law. Let us take a look at what the European Network of Councils for the Judiciary (ENCJ) stated earlier today on the situation of the Judiciary in Turkey from 2016 until now:
    „On 8 December 2016 the ENCJ General Assembly suspended the High Council for Judges and Prosecutors of Turkey (currently called the Council of Judges and Prosecutors) as it no longer complied with the ENCJ Statutes and was no longer an institution which is independent of the executive and legislature ensuring the final responsibility for the support of the judiciary in the independent delivery of justice. Four years later, unfortunately, the situation has not improved and has in fact deteriorated considerably. The Council for Judges and Prosecutors is a Council in name only, as none of its actions or decisions demonstrate any concern for the independence of the judiciary. Without a Council to protect and guarantee the independent delivery of justice in Turkey, there is little hope for the Rule of Law in Turkey in general and for access to independent, fair and impartial courts for all who come before the courts including Turkish citizens. The ENCJ wishes to express, once again, its solidarity with those judges and prosecutors who, without due process or just cause have been unlawfully dismissed, detained and convicted and calls upon the relevant Turkish authorities to ensure speedy, open, fair and impartial judicial process for all detained judges and prosecutors. Reports of the trials against judges and prosecutors give little reason to believe that due process requirements are being observed or that justice is being valued. The ENCJ also commends the Turkish judges and prosecutors who have managed to find refuge outside of Turkey and continue to stand up and raise their voice for the Rule of Law and justice in Turkey.
    The ENCJ Executive Board
    Brussels, 8 December 2020“
    We all live in the same world. Let us not pretend otherwise.
    Theodora Ziamou, Judge, Council of State, Athens, Greece

Leave A Comment

WRITE A COMMENT

1. We welcome your comments but you do so as our guest. Please note that we will exercise our property rights to make sure that Verfassungsblog remains a safe and attractive place for everyone. Your comment will not appear immediately but will be moderated by us. Just as with posts, we make a choice. That means not all submitted comments will be published.

2. We expect comments to be matter-of-fact, on-topic and free of sarcasm, innuendo and ad personam arguments.

3. Racist, sexist and otherwise discriminatory comments will not be published.

4. Comments under pseudonym are allowed but a valid email address is obligatory. The use of more than one pseudonym is not allowed.

18 November 2020
,

Corona Constitutional #51: Corona im Bundestag

Heftige Szenen haben sich heute im Deutschen Bundestag abgespielt. Anlass war die Abstimmung über das die Änderung des Infektionsschutzgesetzes, die gesetzliche Grundlage für alles, was in diesen Tagen der zweiten Corona-Welle alles an Maßnahmen zur Eindämmung der Pandemie über uns hereinbricht. Diese Gesetzesgrundlage hatten zuletzt immer mehr Gerichte für unzureichend befunden. Darauf hat der Gesetzgeber reagiert. Ob diese Reaktion verfassungsrechtlich ausreicht und was der Streit darüber für den Parlamentarismus in Deutschland bedeutet, darüber redet Max Steinbeis mit HANS-MICHAEL HEINIG, Verfassungsrechtsprofessor an der Universität Göttingen.
START THE DISCUSSION

Leave A Comment

WRITE A COMMENT

1. We welcome your comments but you do so as our guest. Please note that we will exercise our property rights to make sure that Verfassungsblog remains a safe and attractive place for everyone. Your comment will not appear immediately but will be moderated by us. Just as with posts, we make a choice. That means not all submitted comments will be published.

2. We expect comments to be matter-of-fact, on-topic and free of sarcasm, innuendo and ad personam arguments.

3. Racist, sexist and otherwise discriminatory comments will not be published.

4. Comments under pseudonym are allowed but a valid email address is obligatory. The use of more than one pseudonym is not allowed.

18 November 2020
, , ,

LawRules #9: We need to talk about Refugees and Migration Law

We need to talk about refugees and migration law. In discussions about these topics, refugees and migration policy are often being treated as the other of politics and policy. But the way states treat those seeking refuge and asylum on their territory is fundamentally a rule of law issue, and actually says a lot about the current state of the rule of law there: Are refugees able to enter a jurisdiction and apply for their right to asylum? Are due process obligations being observed? Do refugees have access to justice? Does the European migration law system work? This is what we discuss in this week’s episode of We Need to Talk About the Rule of Law with our distinguished guests:

START THE DISCUSSION

Leave A Comment

WRITE A COMMENT

1. We welcome your comments but you do so as our guest. Please note that we will exercise our property rights to make sure that Verfassungsblog remains a safe and attractive place for everyone. Your comment will not appear immediately but will be moderated by us. Just as with posts, we make a choice. That means not all submitted comments will be published.

2. We expect comments to be matter-of-fact, on-topic and free of sarcasm, innuendo and ad personam arguments.

3. Racist, sexist and otherwise discriminatory comments will not be published.

4. Comments under pseudonym are allowed but a valid email address is obligatory. The use of more than one pseudonym is not allowed.

11 November 2020
, , ,

LawRules #8: We Need to Talk About the Penal System

We need to talk about the Penal System. In European Criminal Law, there is consensus that criminal law should be ultima ratio, that is, the last resort when the law is applied and executed. However, criminal law and the penal system at large have also proven to be an efficient way to silence political opponents and citizens turning against the government by literally barring them from raising their voice in public. We have seen examples for this in Europe, and we’ll have to talk about that today. But there are more aspects to this topic: How are prison systems being used as a tool by autocratic-leaning governments? And how is the relationship between the penal system and the rule of law in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice that the European Union aspires to be?

This is what we dicuss in this week's episode:
START THE DISCUSSION

Leave A Comment

WRITE A COMMENT

1. We welcome your comments but you do so as our guest. Please note that we will exercise our property rights to make sure that Verfassungsblog remains a safe and attractive place for everyone. Your comment will not appear immediately but will be moderated by us. Just as with posts, we make a choice. That means not all submitted comments will be published.

2. We expect comments to be matter-of-fact, on-topic and free of sarcasm, innuendo and ad personam arguments.

3. Racist, sexist and otherwise discriminatory comments will not be published.

4. Comments under pseudonym are allowed but a valid email address is obligatory. The use of more than one pseudonym is not allowed.