Posts mit dem Label rechtsstaat werden angezeigt. Alle Posts anzeigen
Posts mit dem Label rechtsstaat werden angezeigt. Alle Posts anzeigen

Juli 19, 2013

In schlechter Verfassung

“D’Verfassung ass kloer: 90 Deeg no der Opléisung vum Parlament si Wahlen. D’Chamber huet zwou Méiglechkeeten: se hällt sech un d’Verfassung oder stëmmt iwwer d’Motions de Confiance of, déi an der Sëtzung vum 10. Juli ignoréiert goufen. Wéi déi gewielten Parteien an der Chamber elo probéieren hiere Feeler un den demokratesch net legitiméierte Staatsrot a Grand-Duc ofzewälzen ass e schlechte Witz!” sou den Sven Clement weider. “Eppes weist dësen institutiounelle Chaos awer: Lëtzebuerg brauch en uerdentlecht Verfassungsgeriicht, dat dës Froen verbindlech tranchéieren kann!”
 
Piraten als letzte Verteidiger der Verfassungskonformität, soweit ist es schon gekommen... währenddessen Serge Urbany (von dem ich eigentlich erwartet hätte, dass er das Verdikt das Staatsrats teilt, immerhin ist eine der dort aufgeführten Alternativen der sofortige Rücktritt der Regierung) im Quotidien die Abschaffung des Staatsrats anregt:
"'Si le Conseil d'État nous sort des trucs pareils, alors on peut aussi s'en passer', renchérit Serge Urbany, unique député de déi Lénk qui, la veille, avait écrit au président de la Chambre, Laurent Mosar, pour demander une séance plénière afin de pouvoir voter une motion de censure. Lui qui veut abolir le SREL semblait prêt à demander l'abolition du Conseil d'État s'il n'était pas capable de rendre des avis éclairés."

Juli 18, 2013

Souverän ist, wer über den Ausnahmezustand entscheidet

Gelesen auf wort.lu:
"Die Hohe Körperschaft [gemeint ist der Staatsrat] hatte in ihrer Stellungnahme Bedenken gegen eine 'dissolution à effet différé' der Abgeordnetenkammer erhoben, die nicht vereinbar mit dem Geist der Verfassung sei.
Über diese Bedenken setzen sich die Abgeordneten nun hinweg. 'Der Geist der Verfassung  spiegelt den Geist des 19. Jahrhunderts wider', hieß es von Seiten des zuständigen Parlamentsausschusses. Für dessen Vorsitzenden Paul-Henri Meyers ist die Debatte um das Wann und Wie der Parlamentsauflösung ein weiterer Beleg für die Notwendigkeit der Verfassungsreform."
und auf tageblatt.lu:
" Würde der Großherzog die Meinung des Staatsrats jedoch teilen und das Parlament mit sofortiger Wirkung auflösen, befürchtet Bodry eine ernsthafte Krise. Der Großherzog würde sich damit gegen alle Parteien [Bodry meint wohl "alle parlamentarischen Fraktionen"] stellen. Damit überschreite das Staatsoberhaupt seine Befugnisse, dürfe er sich doch nicht in politische Fragen einmischen."

Wieso muss es denn überhaupt soweit kommen? Ist es wirklich zuviel verlangt, dass Juncker und die Regierung tatsächlich Verantwortung für die ganze SREL-Affäre übernimmt oder das Parlament noch einmal trotz Sommerpause zusammen kommt, um der Regierung das Vertrauen zu- oder abzusprechen? De facto wird jetzt nämlich die Verfassung als Relikt des 19. Jahrhunderts (ist denn das Großherzogtum Luxemburg das nicht auch?) einfach beiseite geschoben, und der Großherzog dazu aufgefordert, Neuwahlen einzuberufen, obwohl formal eine Regierung im Amt ist und drei Motionen im Parlament einfach übergangen wurden. In anderen Worten, wenn "alle Parteien" mit einem Staatsstreich einverstanden wären, ginge das schon in Ordnung?

August 29, 2012

380 Jahre John Locke

 Of tyranny. (Kapitel XXVIII des zweiten Treatise of Government [1689])

§ 199.

As usurpation is the exercise of power, which another hath a right to, so tyranny is the exercise of power beyond right, which nobody can have a right to. And this is making use of the power any one has in his hands, not for the good of those who are under it, but for his own private separate advantage.—When the governor, however intitled, makes not the law, but his will, the rule; and his commands and actions are not directed to the preservation of the properties of his people, but the satisfaction of his own ambition, revenge, covetousness, or any other irregular passion.

§ 200.

If one can doubt this to be truth, or reason, because it comes from the obscure hand of a subject, I hope the authority of a king will make it pass with him. King James the first, in his speech to the parliament, 1603, tells them thus: “I will ever prefer the weal of the public, and of the whole commonwealth, in making of good laws and constitutions, to any particular and private ends of mine; thinking ever the wealth and weal of the commonwealth to be my greatest weal and worldly felicity; a point wherein a lawful king doth directly differ from a tyrant: for I do acknowledge, that the special and greatest point of difference that is between a rightful king and an usurping tyrant, is this, that whereas the proud and ambitious tyrant doth think his kingdom and people are only ordained for satisfaction of his desires and unreasonable appetites, the righteous and just king doth by the contrary acknowledge himself to be ordained for the procuring of the wealth and property of his people.” And again, in his speech to the parliament, 1609, he hath these words: “The king binds himself by a double oath to the observation of the fundamental laws of his kingdom; tacitly, as by being a king, and so bound to protect as well the people, as the laws of his kingdom; and expressly, by his oath at his coronation; so as every just king, in a settled kingdom, is bound to observe that paction made to his people by his laws, in framing his government agreeable thereunto, according to that paction which God made with Noah after the deluge: Hereafter, seed-time and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night, shall not cease while the earth remaineth. And therefore a king governing in a settled kingdom, leaves to be a king, and degenerates into a tyrant, as soon as he leaves off to rule according to his laws.” And a little after, “Therefore all kings that are not tyrants, or perjured, will be glad to bound themselves within the limits of their laws; and they that persuade them the contrary, are vipers, and pests, both against them and the commonwealth.” Thus that learned king, who well understood the notions of things, makes the difference betwixt a king and a tyrant to consist only in this, that one makes the laws the bounds of his power, and the good of the public the end of his government; the other makes all give way to his own will and appetite.

§ 201.

It is a mistake to think this fault is proper only to monarchies; other forms of government are liable to it, as well as that: for wherever the power, that is put in any hands for the government of the people, and the preservation of their properties, is applied to other ends, and made use of to impoverish, harass, or subdue them to the arbitrary and irregular commands of those that have it; there it presently becomes tyranny, whether those that thus use it are one or many. Thus we read of the thirty tyrants at Athens, as well as one at Syracuse; and the intolerable dominion of the decemviri at Rome was nothing better.

§ 202.

Wherever law ends, tyranny begins, if the law be transgressed to another’s harm; and whosoever in authority exceeds the power given him by the law, and makes use of the force he has under his command, to compass that upon the subject, which the law allows not, ceases in that to be a magistrate; and, acting without authority, may be opposed as any other man, who by force invades the right of another. This is acknowledged in subordinate magistrates. He that hath authority to seize my person in the street, may be opposed as a thief and a robber if he endeavours to break into my house to execute a writ, notwithstanding that I know he has such a warrant, and such a legal authority, as will impower him to arrest me abroad. And why this should not hold in the highest, as well as in the most inferiour magistrate, I would gladly be informed. Is it reasonable that the eldest brother, because he has the greatest part of his father’s estate, should thereby have a right to take away any of his younger brother’s portions? or, that a rich man, who possessed a whole country, should from thence have a right to seize, when he pleased, the cottage and garden of his poor neighbour? The being rightfully possessed of great power and riches, exceedingly beyond the greatest part of the sons of Adam, is so far from being an excuse, much less a reason for rapine and oppression, which the endamaging another without authority is, that it is a great aggravation of it: for the exceeding the bounds of authority is no more a right in a great, than in a petty officer; no more justifiable in a king than a constable; but is so much the worse in him, in that he has more trust put in him, has already a much greater share than the rest of his brethren, and is supposed, from the advantages of his education, employment, and counsellors, to be more knowing in the measures of right and wrong.

§ 203.

“May the commands then of a prince be opposed? may he be resisted as often as any one shall find himself aggrieved, and but imagine he has not right done him? This will unhinge and overturn all polities, and, instead of government and order, leave nothing but anarchy and confusion.”

§ 204.

To this I answer, that force is to be opposed to nothing but to unjust and unlawful force; whoever makes any opposition in any other case, draws on himself a just condemnation both from God and man; and so no such danger or confusion will follow, as is often suggested: for,

§ 205.

First, As, in some countries, the person of the prince by the law is sacred; and so, whatever he commands or does, his person is still free from all question or violence, not liable to force, or any judicial censure or condemnation. But yet opposition may be made to the illegal acts of any inferiour officer, or other commissioned by him; unless he will, by actually putting himself into a state of war with his people, dissolve the government, and leave them to that defence which belongs to every one in the state of nature: for of such things who can tell what the end will be? and a neighbour kingdom has showed the world an odd example. In all other cases the sacredness of the person exempts him from all inconveniencies, whereby he is secure, whilst the government stands, from all violence and harm whatsoever; than which there cannot be a wiser constitution; for the harm he can do in his own person not being likely to happen often, nor to extend itself far; nor being able by his single strength to subvert the laws, nor oppress the body of the people; should any prince have so much weakness and ill-nature as to be willing to do it, the inconveniency of some particular mischiefs that may happen sometimes, when a heady prince comes to the throne, are well recompensed by the peace of the public, and security of the government, in the person of the chief magistrate, thus set out of the reach of danger: it being safer for the body that some few private men should be sometimes in danger to suffer, than that the head of the republic should be easily, and upon slight occasions, exposed.

§ 206.

Secondly, But this privilege belonging only to the king’s person, hinders not, but they may be questioned, opposed, and resisted, who use unjust force, though they pretend a commission from him, which the law authorizes not; as is plain in the case of him that has the king’s writ to arrest a man, which is a full commission from the king; and yet he that has it cannot break open a man’s house to do it, nor execute this command of the king upon certain days, nor in certain places, though this commission have no such exception in it; but they are the limitations of the law, which if any one transgress, the king’s commission excuses him not: for the king’s authority being given him only by the law, he cannot impower any one to act against the law, or justify him, by his commission, in so doing; the commission or command of any magistrate, where he has no authority, being as void and insignificant, as that of any private man; the difference between the one and the other being that the magistrate has some authority so far, and to such ends, and the private man has none at all: for it is not the commission, but the authority, that gives the right of acting; and against the laws there can be no authority. But notwithstanding such resistance, the king’s person and authority are still both secured, and so no danger to governor or government.

§ 207.

Thirdly, supposing a government wherein the person of the chief magistrate is not thus sacred; yet this doctrine of the lawfulness of resisting all unlawful exercises of his power, will not upon every slight occasion endanger him, or embroil the government: for where the injured party may be relieved, and his damages repaired by appeal to the law, there can be no pretence for force, which is only to be used where a man is intercepted from appealing to the law: for nothing is to be accounted hostile force, but where it leaves not the remedy of such an appeal: and it is such force alone, that puts him that uses it into a state of war, and makes it lawful to resist him. A man with a sword in his hand, demands my purse in the highway, when perhaps I have not twelve-pence in my pocket: this man I may lawfully kill. To another I deliver £100 to hold only whilst I alight, which he refuses to restore me, when I am got up again, but draws his sword to defend the possession of it by force, if I endeavour to retake it. The mischief this man does me is an hundred, or possibly a thousand times more than the other perhaps intended me (whom I killed before he really did me any;) and yet I might lawfully kill the one, and connot so much as hurt the other lawfully. The reason whereof is plain; because the one using force, which threatened my life, I could not have time to appeal to the law to secure it: and when it was gone, it was too late to appeal. The law could not restore life to my dead carcase, the loss was irreparable: which to prevent, the law of nature gave me a right to destroy him, who had put himself into a state of war with me, and threatened my destruction. But in the other case, my life not being in danger, I may have the benefit of appealing to the law, and have reparation for my £100 that way.

§ 208.

Fourthly, But if the unlawful acts done by the magistrate be maintained (by the power he has got) and the remedy which is due by law, be by the same power obstructed: yet the right of resisting, even in such manifest acts of tyranny, will not suddenly, or on slight occasions, disturb the government: for if it reach no farther than some private men’s cases, though they have a right to defend themselves, and to recover by force what by unlawful force is taken from them: yet the right to do so will not easily engage them in a contest, wherein they are sure to perish; it being as impossible for one, or a few oppressed men to disturb the government, where the body of the people do not think themselves concerned in it, as for a raving madman, or heady malecontent, to overturn a well-settled state, the people being as little apt to follow the one, as the other.

§ 209.

But if either these illegal acts have extended to the majority of the people; or if the mischief and oppression has lighted only on some few, but in such cases, as the precedent and consequences seem to threaten all; and they are persuaded in their consciences, that their laws, and with them their estates, liberties, and lives are in danger, and perhaps their religion too: how they will be hindered from resisting illegal force, used against them, I cannot tell. This is an inconvenience, I confess, that attends all governments whatsoever, when the governors have brought it to this pass, to be generally suspected of their people; the most dangerous state which they can possibly put themselves in; wherein they are less to be pitied, because it is so easy to be avoided; it being as impossible for a governor, if he really means the good of his people, and the preservation of them, and their laws together, not to make them see and feel it, as it is for the father of a family, not to let his children see he loves and takes care of them.

§ 210.

But if all the world shall observe pretences of one kind, and actions of another; arts used to elude the law, and the trust of prerogative, (which is an arbitrary power in some things left in the prince’s hand to do good, not harm, to the people) employed contrary to the end for which it was given: if the people shall find the ministers and subordinate magistrates chosen suitable to such ends, and favoured, or laid by, proportionably as they promote or oppose them: if they see several experiments made of arbitrary power, and that religion underhand favoured (though publicly proclaimed against) which is readiest to introduce it; and the operators in it supported, as much as may be; and when that cannot be done, yet approved still, and liked the better: if a long train of actions show the councils all tending that way; how can a man any more hinder himself from being persuaded in his own mind, which way things are going; or from casting about how to save himself, than he could from believing the captain of the ship he was in, was carrying him, and the rest of the company, to Algiers, when he found him always steering that course, though cross winds, leaks in his ship, and want of men and provisions did often force him to turn his course another way for some time, which he steadily returned to again, as soon as the wind, weather, and other circumstances would let him?

(wer sich übrigens über die hohe Häufung an Philosophen-Geburtstagen in den letzten Tagen wundert, rechne neun Monate zurück...)

Februar 17, 2012

Den Neie Feierkrop für Gesetz und Ordnung

In Reaktion auf die am Samstag von Piratenpartei, Grünen, Linken und Liberalen veranstaltete Protestdemo  mit zweifelhafter Ikonographie gegen das ACTA-Abkommen, erregt sich das Satireblatt Den neie Feierkrop in seiner heutigen Ausgabe (übrigens auf den Spuren Sloterdijks) über die wortführende Nachwuchspartei:
"(...) Piraten sind für die absolute Freiheit, gegen jeden 'staatlichen Zwang', also auch gegen Regeln zur Einrichtung des gesellschaftlichen Miteinanders. Sie wollen halt gratis im Internet klauen [gratis klauen! wo kommen wir hin?], Musik abladen, ihre Diplomarbeit abkupfern à la Guttenberg, und scheren sich nicht um Urheber- und Autorenrechte, die doch auch der Finanzierung von Kultur, Wissenschaft und Foschung dienen."

Der anonyme Autor bemüht anschließend den Verteidiger einer "eleganten Welt" Felix Bartels, der dazu schreibt:
"Geben Sie einem Raubritter einen Laptop und ein Buch von Milton Friedman - er wird umgehend eine Partei mit einer gelben Flagge gründen, Lohn- und Steuersenkungen sowie natürlich den Rückzug des Staates aus allen Lebensbereichen fordern. Geben Sie ihm ein paar Gehirnwindungen weniger, ein unstetes Gemüt und ein Buch von JJ Rousseau [wohl Anspielung auf "Le premier qui ayant enclos un terrain s'avisa de dire : Ceci est à moi, et trouva des gens assez simples pour le croire, fut le vrai fondateur de la société civile." usw.], und Sie werden einen Gründer der Piratenpartei erhalten. Es ist so einfach. Derselbe Hass in zwei Formen."

Nicht so genau mit der Verteidigung des Rechtsstaats nehmen es die Satiriker allerdings, wenn es gegen unpatriotische Griechen geht, die ihr Erspartes, Ererbtes oder Ergaunertes vorsichtshalber auf luxemburgische Konten deponiert haben. Weist Finanzminister und Bankenplatzlobbyist Luc Frieden hier auf eigentlich selbstverständliche rechtsstaatliche Gepflogenheiten hin ("Man kann nicht einfach solche Konten einfrieren. Dazu braucht es gerichtliche Schritte und dazu braucht es den Beweis, dass hier Steuerbetrug oder etwas anderes vorlag. Und falls dies der Fall ist, können selbstverständlich diese Schritte in Erwägung gezogen werden. Das kann man nicht politisch einseitig beschließen, in einem Rechtsstaat bedarf es hierzu Gerichtsbeschlüsse. Aber das liegt sicherlich im Bereich dessen, was in einigen Fällen notwendig ist."; zitiert nach dem DNF), erscheint gerade er als der Vertreter der Raubritter und Piraten. Verstehe wer will!