Access

You are not currently logged in.

Access your personal account or get JSTOR access through your library or other institution:

login

Log in to your personal account or through your institution.

If You Use a Screen Reader

This content is available through Read Online (Free) program, which relies on page scans. Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.

Keine Auskunft über bewaffneten Innensenator? Fragwürdige Entscheidung des Hamburgischen Verfassungsgerichts vom 4. Mai 2003, HVerfG 9/02

Florian Edinger
Zeitschrift für Parlamentsfragen
Vol. 35, No. 2 (Juni 2004), pp. 305-310
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/24236042
Page Count: 6
  • Read Online (Free)
  • Subscribe ($19.50)
  • Cite this Item
Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.
Keine Auskunft über bewaffneten Innensenator? Fragwürdige Entscheidung des Hamburgischen Verfassungsgerichts vom 4. Mai 2003, HVerfG 9/02
Preview not available

Abstract

When rumours spread that Hamburg's Senator of the Interior was carrying a handgun, a member of the state legislature tabled a question to the government, asking whether this was true and if so, whether it was legal. The government refused to answer. Although the State Constitution compels the government to reply to parliamentary questions, the Constitutional Court ruled that the refusal was in line with the constitution because the disclosure of security details would endanger the Minister's safety. This decision is questionable because it neglects the parliamentary function of exercising control of the government. The answer could have been given, for example, in a confidential committee meeting. In this case the security interests of the government and the need for parliamentary control would both have been respected. Indeed, questions about the legality of Ministers wearing weapons could even have been answered in public. A general reply would not have had to disclose whether the Senator actually wore a weapon nor any information about other security details.

Page Thumbnails

  • Thumbnail: Page 
305
    305
  • Thumbnail: Page 
306
    306
  • Thumbnail: Page 
307
    307
  • Thumbnail: Page 
308
    308
  • Thumbnail: Page 
309
    309
  • Thumbnail: Page 
310
    310