I acknowledged that you correctly quoted law, but that that quoting itself held little significance and did not make for an argument. I criticised that you seem to misunderstand the law and it is legal force both internationaly and within Germany itself.
I suggested that you provide suggestions for imediate but amicable solutions to the problems discussed in this thread instead of stonewalling behind questions about "fundamental priniciples" that have long been answered. I suggest looking at the practice of blocking any and all attemps to improve upon the situation under the guise that it would not be a perfect solution or sit well with everyone affected most critically. I suggest that it would be smart to provide these solutions and come to a compromise before certain terms are up and there might or might not be a drastic change in both politicians and policies that will leave a lot of people hurt.
- - - Updated - - -
What qualifies you to "explain"? Please do tell. Since you clearly stake a claim about having a superior understanding about the issues of and I quote "law, legal texts, authority of Government or how a country is run" here. And it isnt only little old me. You clearly present the same claim to superiority to other users of this forum who disargree with your opinions: What (verifiable) educational or professional qualifications do you have to make an appeal to your own authority.
About the second part: You make arguments about the way I make fun of you, not counterarguments. Since you make no arguments I have nothing further to say.
Now, if what she did was within the limits of her powers is up for debate. The threat of the CSU to bring that before a court is pretty real in the bargaining going on right now.
Oh lord.
Of course it does, what do you think this is, 5th grade debate club? You do not get to apply the exception of the law as the general rule and be within the limits of interpretation. That is outside of your disgretion
Werent you trying to be less of an asspimple?
Cue dramatic music for pompous but meaningless speach.
They have the WORD. They can rule something unconstitutional but what happens in practice? Is that law suddenly going to disappear. Does the court get to decide the specific changes to the law? No it is not. In the best case the government will acknowledge the ruling and reform the law in accordance with the courts ruling. That usually takes several years.
I highly value the BVG, but their decisions arent exaclty always unanimous. I had the pleasure of attending some lectures given by former judges of the BVG, although that was well before the whole refugee issue became a hot topic. By no means am I alone in my assessment of these issues.
I dont mind you romanticizing these people, but thats not helping you stay objective.
Stay classy.