Talk:Political question
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Untitled[edit]
Shouldn't this be merged with justiciability?
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 January 2021 and 13 March 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Skyt23.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 06:51, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
"Parlamentsvorbehalt"[edit]
Would anyone know whether this doctrine is somehow similar to the "Parlamentsvorbehalt" of the German constitutional court? The German doctrine implies that the German constitutional court can decide that a statute is unconstitutional, but should leave it to the parliament to adopt a better statute. Often the constitutional court sets a term: if no better statute is adopted within a number of months, it will simply expire. Note that the the German federal constitutional court is only responsible for constitutional cases, working side by side to the German federal supreme court which is responsible for other cases.
I am not German - but I was impressed by the idea - it is a practical solution for the often-heard concern that courts make politicial decisions without democratic legitimation. Rbakels (talk) 20:31, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- I'm aware this response is much too late, but just in case someone stumbles onto this and has the same question: No, this is not comparable at all and does not state what you're saying. The Parlamentsvorbehalt proclaims that all government actions which are wesentlich (substantial) for one's exercise of fundamental laws must be regulated in a government law. The reason unconstitutional laws are sometimes upheld for a certain amount of time is the consideration that an unconstitutional law is sometimes better than no law at all. Usually though, an unconstitutional law will be declared void (nichtig) immediately (§ 31 II BVerfGG)
- The political question doctrine is entirely incompatible with German constitutional law. --2001:7C0:2517:C:CD46:D073:1DD7:1B22 (talk) 21:27, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
External links modified[edit]
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Political question. 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/20060531101052/http://bailey83221.livejournal.com/74699.html to http://bailey83221.livejournal.com/74699.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:50, 5 April 2017 (UTC)