Talk:Federal Constitutional Court: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Latest revision as of 06:18, 14 February 2024

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Law High‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Germany Top‑importance

	Germany portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article lacks sufficient references and/or adequate inline citations. Once references have been added, remove the `\|unref=` from this template.

Politics Mid‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Grammar review

This page needs some serious grammar review :-( Hazzl 15:43, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Assessment

Without sourcing, this cannot be higher than start class. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:25, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why not a critic-part?

In the page of the US Supreme Court it give a interesst and fair part for critics about the system. Why not here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.61.71.104 (talk) 20:18, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that easy to compare the Bundesverfassungsgericht with the US Supreme Court and maybe there isn't that much to complain about. 213.102.93.105 (talk) 18:33, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Politicians will sometimes complain that it decides too much in details, but it is generally acknowledged that this is rather a failure of politics to get these details straight on their own, than "judicial activism" in the US sense of the word. However, I hold some of its decisions which pass a long the line of a "religious neutrality", not demanded by the Basic Law or, as I perceive, a law on federal level, and directly contradicting some Länder constitutions, on a wrong way. Most notably the Crucifix decision. --91.34.238.47 (talk) 16:47, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are certainly decisions by this court that deserve criticism, I for instance think that the Incest-Decision or Osho&Glykol are wrong. And I also think that it's possible to find "valid" criticism of its decisions. However there isn't even a list or subsection of important decisions. And general criticism of the institution or its general behavior is very rare. So I'd agree with the User that answered before me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.194.172.252 (talk) 20:52, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a considerable amount of criticism, mostly about it being active as a substitute legislature (Ersatzgesetzgeber) as well as it overreaching in its protection.

Amp2001 (talk) 22:45, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Landmark decisions

I started to implement the landmark decisions of the court. Due to not beeing a native English speeker, I welcome any review of the section. --PaxTerra (talk) 20:18, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To this: as a native german speaker, there is a fairly large list of landmark cases on the german Wikipedia article de:Bundesverfassungsgericht, I think this should be outsourced into a separate article that could be translated, perhaps Landmark cases of the Federal Constitutional Court or something along those lines. The german wiki page provides sources to each case and their implications.

Amp2001 (talk) 22:30, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
+{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|1=
+{{WikiProject Law|importance=High}}
+{{WikiProject Germany|importance=Top|unref=yes}}
+{{WikiProject Politics|importance=Mid}}
+}}
+==Grammar review==
 This page needs some serious grammar review :-( [[User:Hazzl|Hazzl]] 15:43, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
+==Assessment==
+Without sourcing, this cannot be higher than start class. [[User:Aboutmovies|Aboutmovies]] ([[User talk:Aboutmovies|talk]]) 08:25, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
+== Why not a critic-part? ==
+In the page of the US Supreme Court it give a interesst and fair part for critics about the system. Why not here?  <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/84.61.71.104|84.61.71.104]] ([[User talk:84.61.71.104|talk]]) 20:18, 11 March 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
+::It's not that easy to compare the Bundesverfassungsgericht with the US Supreme Court and maybe there isn't that much to complain about. [[Special:Contributions/213.102.93.105|213.102.93.105]] ([[User talk:213.102.93.105|talk]]) 18:33, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
+::: Politicians will sometimes complain that it decides too much in details, but it is generally acknowledged that this is rather a failure of politics to get these details straight on their own, than "judicial activism" in the US sense of the word. <small>However, I hold some of its decisions which pass a long the line of a "religious neutrality", ''not'' demanded by the Basic Law or, as I perceive, a law on federal level, and directly contradicting some ''Länder'' constitutions, on a wrong way. Most notably the Crucifix decision.</small> --[[Special:Contributions/91.34.238.47|91.34.238.47]] ([[User talk:91.34.238.47|talk]]) 16:47, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
+::::There are certainly decisions by this court that deserve criticism, I for instance think that the Incest-Decision or Osho&Glykol are wrong. And I also think that it's possible to find "valid" criticism of its decisions. However there isn't even a list or subsection of important decisions. And general criticism of the institution or its general behavior is very rare. So I'd agree with the User that answered before me.  <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/79.194.172.252|79.194.172.252]] ([[User talk:79.194.172.252|talk]]) 20:52, 13 December 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
+:::::There is a considerable amount of criticism, mostly about it being active as a substitute legislature (Ersatzgesetzgeber) as well as it overreaching in its protection.
+:::::[[User:Amp2001|Amp2001]] ([[User talk:Amp2001|talk]]) 22:45, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
+== Landmark decisions ==
+I started to implement the landmark decisions of the court. Due to not beeing a native English speeker, I welcome any review of the section.
+--[[User:PaxTerra|PaxTerra]] ([[User talk:PaxTerra|talk]]) 20:18, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
+::To this: as a native german speaker, there is a fairly large list of landmark cases on the german Wikipedia article [[de:Bundesverfassungsgericht]], I think this should be outsourced into a separate article that could be translated, perhaps [[Landmark cases of the Federal Constitutional Court]] or something along those lines. The german wiki page provides sources to each case and their implications.
+::[[User:Amp2001|Amp2001]] ([[User talk:Amp2001|talk]]) 22:30, 20 April 2021 (UTC)