Bavaria: the popular petition against rejected surface pollution – political

The Bavarian Constitutional Court rejects the referendum against the immense surface pollution in the free state – it's a mistake, a stupid and unfortunate decision.

In Bavaria, 18 football fields disappear every day; and every year an Ammersee disappears. It's obvious, it's unfortunate, it breaks down what is dear to people and is worth it and home. In other states, it is true, but in Bavaria, it is the worst. Bavaria is the German leader in terms of exit, furniture sales and parking, followed by Lower Saxony and North Rhine-Westphalia

Germany disperses, urban centers become deserted and nature is marketed. These are not the concrete football fields and lakes that disappear – it's a natural area, there are meadows and farmland, which must give way to commercial areas all over Germany ; in Bavaria 13 hectares a day. If this continues, you can change the Bavarian hymn: God with you, your country outlets.

Unfortunately, this continues. The Bavarian Constitutional Court rejected the referendum against unrestrained consumption of land as inadmissible. It's wrong, it's incomprehensible, it's an unfortunate decision. The Constitutional Court is there to help uphold fundamental rights, strengthen fundamental rights and fundamental values ​​and state objectives, to help them.

An exemplary case of cramps

Article 141 of the Bavarian Constitution the natural livelihoods of the state community are entrusted – including the Constitutional Court of the State. This article states that one of the main tasks of the state, municipalities and public law entities is to protect the soil as a natural foundation of life and to remedy or compensate for the damage that occurs. are produced. If it fails, the Constitutional Court must be a worker of fragility. The highest court of Bavaria refused this task; he hid behind a presumed inadmissibility of the referendum

This is an exemplary case of cramps. If one wonders why the basic law plays such an important role in Germany, but why nobody knows the constitutions of the state, we find in this decision against the referendum the answer: constitutional courts are too much discouraged, too reserved, too modest, They do not give the fundamental rights of the state constitution the value and not the importance that they might have. They behave like wallflowers.

The Federal Constitutional Court is very different: it is this court that made the Basic Law what it is – a work with rights and guarantees that citizens like to call . The Federal Constitutional Court has developed and strengthened fundamental rights. Fundamental rights would have remained pale if the Karlsruhe judges had not painted them. In the states, in Bavaria in particular, the opposite has occurred for decades

The fundamental rights and the constitutional objectives of the constitution are in fact marvelously concrete, adapted to life and to everyday life, understandable and useful – not only is nature going and where it allows every citizen access to lakes and "acquiring wild forest fruits"; Even in the area of ​​economic and fiscal policy, "property value increases, which occur without any special labor and investment costs on the part of the owner, must be made usable by the general public" – c & # This is stipulated in Article 161 (2) of the Bavarian Constitution. 19659006] Dirt in the Schachterl

What do citizens have? To say good Bairisch: dirt in the Schachterl – so nothing. The competent court did not make these awards fruitful. It's a pity, it's bitter.

The basic law has a good address: Karlsruhe! State constitutions do not have such a good and strong address. Karlsruhe has never hesitated to intervene in the rays of German politics. The Bavarian Constitutional Court also wanted to intervene in Bavarian politics. It would be good for the country. This also applies to other federal states and other constitutional courts. It is time for the awakening of state constitutions.