Why Is Psychology A Good Career

The waiver and re-elected President

's resignation and new elections the German Federal President

By: Geraldine Gonzalez de la Vega

The German Federal President (Bundespräsident) is the Head of State. Representing the German nation in international issues and is elected by a Federal Convention (Bundesversammlung) composed of members of the Bundestag or lower house and an equal number of elected members in the Landtag (local parliaments) based on proportional representation.

may be subject to impeachment for violation of the Basic Law or Federal Law. The Grundgesetz or Basic Law gives the president powers to be mainly representative to prevent problems that occurred during the Weimar Republic. Although you can mention some important functions of highest constitutional body: The choice the Federal Chancellor, Federal President may propose a candidate, however, this proposal is not binding for the Bundestag. Any official act of the President requires the approval of the Federal Government and, unlike the Reich President during the Weimar Republic, can not enact emergency decrees.

The Federal President is responsible for signing the law in order to be published in the Bundesgesetzblatt (Official Gazette) and take effect. You can refuse to sign a bill if you doubt their constitutionality, but in this case, the other constitutional bodies (Bundestag, Bundesrat and the Federal Government) may appeal to the Constitutional Court to decide the case. If the Constitutional Court decides the constitutionality of law, the Federal President should sign it or resign.

Only in some specific situations of emergency, the Federal President has real political power, may dissolve the Federal Parliament (Bundestag) in two cases: If the Federal Chancellor's election no candidate wins an absolute majority after three ballots, the Federal President may choose to appoint the candidate voted to form a minority government or dissolve the Bundestag and call new elections (Article 63 of the Grundgesetz). However, since 1949, has never been the case.

addition, the Federal President may dissolve the Bundestag if the Chancellor presents a question of confidence and lose it (Article 68 Grundgesetz). To date, this has happened three times: in 1972 with Willy Brandt in 1983 with Helmut Kohl and Gerhard Schröder in 2005. However, all these solutions have been caused on purpose by the Federal Government to allow early elections, as the German parliamentary system does not provide any other way to dissolve the Bundestag. The censure motion is constructive. Brandt presented to legitimize his government, having been almost removed by a motion of censure was designed to replace by Rainer Barzel the CDU. Helmut Kohl on the other hand, came to the government through the motion of censure that removed Helmut Schmidt, the SPD. Kohl, the CDU / CSU wanted to legitimize his government by popular vote. Gerhard Schröder the SPD introduced the issue of confidence to legitimize his rule and reforms in social security and labor was performed. During the first months of 2005, the SPD lost several local elections, which Schröder interpreted as lack of support from citizens. The coalition of Schroeder and Fischer miscalculated, because after dissolving the Bundestag, the government lost at the hands of Angela Merkel in September 2005.

Back to Federal President

Horst Köhler, who was reelected on May 23, 2009, had already 6 years in office, with a low profile and conservative . Last year he won the exact number of votes representing 50% +1 (613) in the first round. Gesine Schwan, the candidate of the SPD and Greens, won 503 votes.

On Monday May 31, 2010, Horst Köhler resigned unexpectedly , because it considered that "lost respect for the office" for a controversial statements that he had made occasion of his visit to the German army in Afghanistan. Köhler said: "In extreme cases, military force is necessary to secure our interests, for example the protection of our trade lanes." This was criticized by the opposition, and even within their own ranks. Köhler felt that these criticisms were missing respect for his office and submitted his resignation immediately, leaving hanging the German state during the economic crisis and yes, politics. Just a week earlier, the Minister President of Hessen, Roland Koch of the CDU, had announced his resignation from politics in August, giving a good blow to Angela Merkel, who seems unable to achieve consensus within his party, which remains its President. His poor performance against the Greek crisis and its inability to build consensus with your partner, the Liberals of FDP, we have downgraded confidence and Merkel's government has accepted the worst rates in history. Köhler did not think twice Castillo left the presidential residence Bellevue-Berlin-the first time.

That Monday was known about the 12hrs that the President had called a press conference at 14hrs, no one knew why. In a short speech, Köhler explained the reasons for his resignation and left everyone speechless. The news did not know how to react, started the speculation "must be other reasons," he claimed " " now what's next? " asked. Immediately advised the President of the Bundesrat, Böhrnsen Jens, took office as interim . Initially the resignation received positive reviews, though perhaps more from abroad, in Mexico for example I read that people appreciated the value of Köhler to accept his mistake and resign, something rare in these times in our country. But the truth is that in Germany , from right to left, his resignation was criticadísima. Köhler, who comes from "financial caste" was the Financial Times the headline of "deserter"

Merkel and Vice Chancellor, Westerwelle appeared a couple of hours later regret the resignation. Merkel in a damage control effort, minimized the note giving a press conference to discuss the resignation and Flotilla attack by the army of Israel, thereby giving equal weight to the notes and down the hysteria. To a question by q "ho's next? Chancellor said this was a day to remember the work of Köhler, and then announce who would be the new (a) candidate by the coalition government: CDU / FDP.

between Tuesday and Thursday, the name that rang was the strongest of the current Labour Minister, Ursula von der Leyen, whose political career began only in 1996. 4 The list of names that sounded since the resignation of Köhler at the headquarters of the government were: Ursula von der Leyen (Minister of Labour), Christian Wulff (Lower Saxony Minister-President), Wolfgang Schäuble (Minister of Finance) and Norbert Lammert (President of the Bundestag).

On behalf of the SPD and Greens were heard the names of Peer Steinbrück (former Minister of Finance) and Margo Käßmann, Minister of the Evangelical Church (who in early 2010 was involved in a scandal for having driven a car with high levels of alcohol, why he had to resign the presidency of the board of the German Evangelical Church).

June 3 to begin the litigation of testosterone, the possible nomination of Ursula von der Leyen and Merkel's favorite was disputed by the governor of Lower Saxony, Christian Wulff. While everyone is dealing with von der Leyen, Wulff lobbied for support in states led by the so-called "Landesfürsten" or "barons of the CDU," Wulff their votes in the bag, lifted his hand and pulled von der Leyen. actually is said that he would have the support of a majority in the Federal Convention which will meet June 30 to elect the President.

personally seen more sympathetically von der Leyen option because his personality would revitalize the presidency, as dull and conservative, and because it would open the possibilities in the state of Nord-Rhein Westfalen (North Rhine had elections a month) to form a government, as Rüttgers, the governor of the CDU did not obtain a majority, have gone instead of von der Leyen the Ministry of Labour. NRW is now stuck in the negotiations and it appears that we will have new elections.

But not vary, the conservative Union barons wanted to do it their way. Although I must say that the fact that Wulff has been chosen by the coalition of Merkel and if he managed to be elected as President, the Chancellor would be quiet, as he was seen as the only realistic chance of challenging under Angela Merkel, after the resignation of Roland Koch, Merkel has no rival within his party.

About the 6pm June 3 the SPD and Green submitted their candidate for President: Joachim Gauck, human rights activist in the former GDR, a member of first democratically elected parliament in East Germany and first director of the Stasi files. If the election for President was direct, I dare say Gauck win, by far.

An hour later, Angela Merkel had Christian Wulff candidate along with Deputy Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle.

Therefore, the match to succeed will be between Gauck Köhler (SPD / Greens) and Wulff (CDU / CSU / FDP), Die Linke as though the journalist has nominated Lukrezia Joachims and NPD (far right) intends to nominate Frank Rennicke again, the reality is that their candidates do not have enough votes to achieve their triumph.

The opposition criticized by Wulff as a man of daily politics capable of polarizing and do not represent all Germans. On the other hand, consider a person Gauck is above political parties, able to represent and unite.

Christian Wulff, only by numbers, should be the winner because the coalition (CDU / CSU + FDP) will probably the 647 votes. 623 of the Convention need to be 1244 members. But it seems that although the numbers say otherwise, Gauck would be able to contest the victory to Wulff, it is said that within the coalition not everyone is happy with his nomination, members of the FDP in the so-called new states (those belonging the RDA) say they prefer to Gauck. The same is true of many members of the Convention that are not members of the Bundestag.

The President of the Bundestag, Norbert Lammert, and has called the 14. Bundesversammlung for the day June 30, so that the days are numbered for integration (each state will have to nominate their representatives), and for candidates to achieve the necessary support to achieve 50% +1 of the votes available 1244.

The vote was made without debate and will be elected president the person who obtains an absolute majority vote of the Convention, if after two ballots, no candidate receives a majority will elect the person who had the highest number of votes. The mandate of the Federal President is five years with possibility of reelection.

Köhler's victory in 2009 was a political achievement for Merkel, as the government was still formed by the grand coalition (between the CDU and SPD), Merkel had succeeded in having his candidate wins, the candidate who had actually been proposed by The FDP for 5 years. Köhler which obtains the majority of the first, was an omen for his victory in elections in September, where indeed the CDU and FDP were able to form a "government of their dreams." Things have not gone as expected, and now I dare to predict that the losing candidate of the CDU / FDP (Christian Wulff) would apply the same rule, but in the opposite direction would be the beginning the end for Angela Merkel.

Catchy Real Estate Slogans Usa

The German Federal Tax Court Attack

Attack of the Tax Court IFAI

By: Geraldine Gonzalez de la Vega * and Moya Eduardo Juarez

The January 8, 2008 the Attorney General's Office (PGR) submitted to the Federal Court of Justice Fiscal and Administrative (TFJFA) a petition for annulment against the decision issued by the Federal Institute of Access to Information (IFAI) of 26 September 2007 by which reverses the PGR response to the appellant Blas Alejandro Buendia Wells . Buendía Wells filed a request for access to information to the Attorney General to disclose information relating to previous investigations initiated against Rosario Robles Berlanga. Likewise, Wells Buendía asked the PGR did a search in all areas of the unit to locate information relating to complaints and preliminary inquiries against Robles Berlanga or their relatives.

Buendía PGR Wells answered unsatisfactorily, for which the applicant appealed the IFAI response to an action for review in accordance with the procedures laid down in Articles 49 to 60 of the Federal Law of Transparency and Access to Public Government Information (LFTAIPG). IFAI believes the answer given by the Liaison Unit of Wells Buendía PGR is contrary to the provisions of the LFTAIPG and revoked in its resolution establishing a series of obligations to the PGR for the appellant. Against this reversal in terms of LFTAIPG, there is no longer any appeal for reconsideration, as Article 59 of the Act provides that l as IFAI resolutions shall be final for agencies.

At no no right of appeal against the decision of the IFAI, the PGR concluded that it would apply the legislation on administrative acts, ie Federal Administrative Procedure Act and the Federal Law of Administrative Procedure , he lodged an application for annulment with the TFJFA , p same or an order dated January 15, 2008 was dismissed. The PGR then proceeded by an action of appeal against this car, it was resolved that issued an interlocutory decision dated June 6, 2008 in revoking the order of 15 January 2008 and supported the application for annulment filed by the Attorney General against the revocation of IFAI.

interlocutory ruling in the judges deem as appropriate and founded the lawsuit filed by the Attorney General and consider that the TFJFA does have jurisdiction to hear an appeal against a decision of IFAI. This being the main argument answering the demand by the IFAI, the TFJFA dismissed and consequently avoca a review of the three concepts of challenge that the PGR is asserted in its application.

Case TFJFA considered grounds for inadmissibility unfounded and dismissed the IFAI intends to argue that this Court has no jurisdiction to hear this matter, it argues that this was the subject of a complaint appeal resolved on the occasion of the car that initially dismissed the application for annulment filed by the Attorney General, a situation that concerned the Court, prevents him from reviewing the issue of invalidity and dismissal.

The Court considers in its ruling that the resolution of the PGR IFAI used before the TFJFA is partially valid. The declared null TFJFA three obligations discovery and delivery of information by the PGR Buendía Wells, the view that are contrary to various provisions of the LFTAIPG.

is considered an unfair administrative action which is contrary to rulings of the IFAI, is based on the following reasoning:

1 .- The decisions of the IFAI can not be challenged by the obligated (PGR), as the articles themselves 26, 49, 50 and 51 of the LFTAIPG, which govern the appeal do not provide a hypothesis of origin in this sense, coupled with the numeral 59 of LFTAIPG is overwhelming in establishing that such decisions are final for agencies of the federal government, so the TFJFA can not know of such decision to be specific provision of the unchallengeable nature of the resolutions to the obligor.

2 .- The decisions of the IFAI, may be appealed only by individuals to the Federal Judicial Power, as is provided for in Article 59 the LFTAIPG. The Act also provides for a motion for reconsideration where, t nce A year after the Institute issued a decision confirming the decision of a committee, the individual concerned may apply to the same institute to reconsider the resolution. That is, as stated in the previous section, in any event the obligated (Authority) may appeal against the decision of IFAI.

3 .- The LFTAIPG, Article 51, precludes the application of Article 83 of the Federal Administrative Procedure Act (judicial review), so that the hypothesis of origin under Article 14, Section XII of the Organic Law of TFJFA not apply in that case, as apparently it is based.

4 .- TFJFA, in accordance with Article 73, paragraph XXIX-H of the Constitution, was established solely to settle disputes between the Federal Civil Service and individuals, and to impose sanctions on public servants (system is still not within functions in the absence of rules governing the procedure), which is in accordance with Articles 1 and 14 of the Organic Act and TFJFA 1, 2 and 3 of the Federal Law of Administrative, given that the only case in which an authority may serve as a plaintiff or plaintiffs in the administrative action which is when it demands the annulment of his own decision which it considered illegal, which is favorable to a particular give an undue advantage (commonly called the trial of harmfulness).

are illustrative of the comments made, two isolated from two different theses Collegiate Administrative Court of the First Circuit supporting the irrelevance of administrative action which is instituted by the Attorney General against resolution IFAI:

Ninth Period

Record: 170912

Instance: Collegiate Courts Circuit

Thesis Isolated

Source: Judicial Weekly of the Federation and its Gazette

XXVI, November 2007

Subject (s): Administrative

Thesis: A I.6o.A.49

Page: 757

APPEAL REVIEW UNDER THE FEDERAL LAW OF TRANSPARENCY AND PUBLIC ACCESS TO GOVERNMENT INFORMATION. THE CHALLENGE OF RESOLUTIONS ISSUED IN THAT APPEAL, COMPETE TO JUDICIARY FEDERATION.

Articles 49 and 50 of the Federal Law of Transparency and Access to Public Government Information provide the source of judicial review against the decisions issued by the Federal Institute of Access to Public Information, in turn, Article 51 provides that the writ of review may be in place in Article 83 of the Federal Administrative Procedure Act, then whether Article 59 of the Federal Law of Transparency and Access to Information Public Government expressly states that the decisions of the institute shall be final para las dependencias y entidades, y que los particulares podrán impugnarlas ante el Poder Judicial de la Federación, es claro que la intención del legislador fue excluir al Tribunal Federal de Justicia Fiscal y Administrativa del conocimiento de las resoluciones recaídas a los recursos de revisión, emitidas por dicho instituto, sin que con ello se violente la garantía de audiencia, pues, precisamente, atendiendo a los principios que dicha garantía consagra, es que se previó tanto el recurso de revisión, como su impugnación ante el Poder Judicial de la Federación, y basta para colmar el requisito constitucional, que se precise la existencia de un medio de defensa y ante quién se debe intentar.

Collegiate SIXTH ADMINISTRATIVE COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT.

direct Amparo 78/2007. Alestra, S. de RL de CV May 30, 2007. Unanimous vote. Speaker: Rubén Rodríguez Pedrero. Secretary: Irene Núñez Ortega.

Ninth time

Record: 170991

Instance: Circuit Courts

Thesis Isolated

Source: Judicial Weekly of the Federation and its Gazette

XXVI, October 2007

Subject (s): Administrative

Thesis: A I.13o.A.142

Page: 3349

JUSTICE FEDERAL COURT OF FISCAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE. IS INCOMPETENT TO KNOW OF RELAPSE TO APPEAL DECISIONS OF REVIEW UNDER THE FEDERAL LAW OF TRANSPARENCY AND PUBLIC ACCESS TO GOVERNMENT INFORMATION.

Article 11, Section XIII, Organic Law of the Federal Court of Fiscal and Administrative Justice states that this body shall deal with the trials to be promoted against final decisions of administrative authorities to stop an administrative procedure to resolve an instance or a file in terms of the Federal Administrative Procedure Act. Moreover, the provision 49 of the Federal Law of Transparency and Access to Public Government Information provides that the applicant who has been notified by a committee decision to refuse access to information or the absence of the requested documents may lodge an application for review before the Federal Institute Access to Public Information (IFAI) or to the liaison which handled the case, and different article 51 of the Ordinance provides that the aforementioned means of defense instead of the contents shall in Article 83 of Federal Law Administrative Procedure. Consequently, the appeal referred to in the said Article 49 is different from what the Act contains an adjective, given the particular nature of matter to which he belongs and, therefore, the court is given jurisdiction to hear the resolution falls to the first action under the provisions referred. This is confirmed with the provisions of Article 59 of the Federal Law of Transparency and Access to Information Public Government, which states that decisions of that institute will be final for the agencies and entities of the federal government, adding that individuals, irrespective of whether they are requesting the information or third party may appeal to the Judicial Branch Federation, which is interpreted to be challenged through an appeal hearing, since it ensures greater security for the governed and respect the constitutional design that gives the referred to the last word on interpreting the laws, above, in order to quickly and avoid burdensome procedures to dilate yet more to obtain the requested information in cases, as appropriate.

THIRTEENTH Collegiate ADMINISTRATIVE COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT.

direct Amparo 8 / 2007. Gas Natural Mexico, SA de CV June 29, 2007. Unanimous vote. Speaker: Rolando González Licona. Secretary: Ana Luisa Muñoz Rojas.

IFAI have available to the application for review under Article 63 of Federal Law of Administrative Procedure, as a means by virtue of which could achieve the revocation of the ruling of the Board, however the problem would be that action has not been tried.

---

* While preparing this paper, Moya Eduardo Juarez emailed me his arguments about the incompetence of TFJFA. On the strength of these, to coincide with my way of thinking and intellectual ethics, I decided to incorporate as a contributor.

Running Runners Cakes Idea

IFAI's right of access to information

's right of access to information

By: Geraldine Gonzalez de la Vega

Last week news spread about the declaration of competence by the Federal Tribunal of Fiscal and Administrative Justice to hear appeals against decisions of the Federal Institute of Access to Information (IFAI). Many believe that the interference the Court is unacceptable, because it lacks jurisdiction and because it paid to the autonomy of the IFAI desirable when making decisions regarding the right of individuals to know the information in the hands of the Federal Public Administration. When you open the possibility that the author used the resolutions of IFAI, breaks the principle of finality that ensures certainty in the exercise of the right by the individual. Otherwise, it allows a court battle against the authority that truncates the idea of \u200b\u200baccessibility to public information.

IFAI independence is achieved through its budgetary, operational and decision and by the fact that it is headed by five commissioners appointed by the Executive but with the possibility that the Senate objects to the appointment. Although part of the Federal Public Administration, IFAI commissioners not may be removed from office only when transgress in a serious or repeated the provisions of the Constitution or the Law of Transparency, when acts or omissions will affect the powers of the Institute, or have been convicted of a felony punishable by imprisonment body. It also provides that the Institute for purposes of its resolutions, is not subject to any authority, shall act in full independence and will have the necessary human and material resources for performance of their duties.

The IFAI is therefore the guarantor of a valuable right in a constitutional democracy. The TFJFA, abusing his authority, very serious violent right of access to public information by individuals. Important to explain why I believe What does the right to information?

Sergio López Ayllón [1] explains the right to information as a right that includes interrelated three faculties: the freedom to seek, or researching information, freedom to receive information and the freedom to disseminate information.

Meanwhile, Toby Mendel [2] explains the right to information by dividing it into three areas: the right of access to information, the State's obligation to publicize and disseminate information of general interest and reserved that it deems not be made public in accordance with clear exceptions established by law and the right to truth, that is, the citizen's right to know on matters of public interest and that they are investigated and the results made public, it would enter the truth commissions and committees of inquiry.

Then, freedom of information support participatory democracy and the foundation of transparency and good governance. His practice drives all the constitutional, because the democratic principle requires adequate protection and guarantee of fundamental rights and informed participation of citizens in shaping the will of the state.

The basic values \u200b\u200bof the Constitutional Court are updated upon entry into force of a law governing access to public information in state hands, as it is driven democratic participation, the exercise of fundamental rights and the real task of the sovereign people .

While the constitutional interpretation of Article 6 establishes the right of access to information since December 1977, it was not until June 2002 found that Mexican citizens in the Federal Law of Transparency and Access to Public Government Information (LFTAIPG), ensuring their right to access information in state hands.

The LFTAIPG came to fill one of the loopholes that exist in the integration of constitutional law and proper coordination requires both the interpretation of the Act, as the Supreme Rule itself, then this is your beginning and end. It is therefore essential to continue with the generally recognized principles for the exercise of freedom of information in this regard, I follow the standards that Mendel stated in his article on freedom of information [3] :

• principle of maximum disclosure
• define what information means
• Obligation to publish key information
• clear and narrow exceptions, subject to proof and the general interest
• protection law through an independent administrative body

The importance of the right of access to information lies in two senses: first, to be recognized as a fundamental right requires your application and security for specific constitutional means, ie through its establishment in constitutional law, through its realization via ordinary legislation and through your warranty through autonomous body created by the law itself, and through of a judicial process. The second sense of the importance of the right of access to information is that it is a fundamental right from which other rights depend, as for the effective exercise of which depends on information which the citizen has to exercise.

In this sense, we can enumerate just some of the rights rights recognized in the Constitution that require the exercise of the right of access to information as a prerequisite for democratic exercise: The right of association, participation in drafting the National Development Plan through consultation, the right to vote , rights in work and social welfare, education rights, health, environment, among others.

Based on the foregoing, the right of access to information is the foundation of a democratic system in which public participation takes place in an informed and therefore equal. By accepting the demands TFJFA to void the IFAI resolutions submitted by the authority required to provide the information, it breaks with the principles of transparency of the democratic state, it is truncated to exercise the right to make it a Way of the Cross bureaucratic and judicial and therefore limits its efficiency and prevents the accurate exercise of a right. Significantly increases the cost of exercising the right, and that is an unconstitutional limitation.

The right is to disseminate information on activities to all citizens enabling, through democratization of information, control of administrative action by public. The publicity of administrative action is to reinforce its democratic legitimacy and its own essentially helpful, legitimate in its origin, basis and period, ie directly related to accountability. As the object of the right to access to information captured in documents, the activity of the obligor or authority is not to provide a service but intermediation between the individual and the information that the authority gives its behalf. The information clearly can be classified as secret or confidential, but it is essential that a balance between publicity and secrecy, the former must be the first, the second exception. Therefore, there must be an exhaustive list of exceptions and the hermeneutic approach that presides over the interpretation must be the principle of publicity.

is clear that the creation of the LFTAIPG not bring its own practices and uses for the practice of law, because to do so must be a genuine public policy of transparency to include other measures Additional administrative structures, material, financial, human, information dissemination, etc.

It above, I consider that the interference of TFJFA paves the culture of secrecy, illegality and opacity in the acts of authority, and therefore, contradicts outright the desire for a "true" democratic state. It is unfortunate that in Mexico there are still officials willing to truncate this desire.

---

[1] López Ayllón, Sergio. The Right to Information as fundamental rights. In Right to Information and Human Rights Studies in Tribute to maestro Mario de la Cueva. Carpizo, Jorge and Carbonell, Miguel (Coordinator) UNAM Legal Research Institute. Mexico, 2000. pp. 160 -181.

[2] Mendel, Toby . Freedom of Information : internationally protected human rights. Journal of Comparative Law in the information published by the Institute of Legal Research UNAM, Universidad Iberoamericana and University of the West. Number 1 January-June 2003. Pages 1-4.

[3] Mendel, Toby . op. Page 4.

Compound Interest Formula

Six decades of democracy

Six decades of German democracy

By: Geraldine Gonzalez de la Vega

This May 23, the German Basic Law turns 61 years. Last year he celebrated his sixtieth birthday with many events in the former capital, Bonn and the current, Berlin.

is called the Basic Law and Constitution not because at the time of writing, Germany was occupied and divided. The name designating its provisional character and its validity only in the West. Until October 3, 1990, with reunification Germany, the Grundgesetz was ratified by all the federal states and converted into the Constitution of the German people. Although there was a referendum for popular approval, the German Basic Law is legitimate and is recognized nationally and internationally as a democratic constitution.

On May 8, 1945, after the suicide of Adolf Hitler, the Nazi army surrendered. On June 5 won the war is declared against Germany in the Berlin Declaration in which attended: General Eisenhower (USA), General Schukow (USSR), Marshall Montgomery (UK) and General de Lattre de Tassigny (France).

In August of that year the Allies met in Potsdam to identify areas of occupation that govern each. The British zone with its capital in Bad Oeynhausen, the French capital in Baden-Baden, with its capital in the U.S. and Soviet Frankfurt with Karlshorst capital. In this way Germany was divided into 4 zones, which will eventually be leaving Germany in two: East Germany or East Germany and West Germany or West Germany.

During the years 1946 and 47 Western allies formed the Federated States and named Ministrospresidentes, and it was approved by referendum their constitutions. Military Governor, Sir Brian Robertson, proposed on June 12, 1947 in its zone of occupation, the creation of a postwar German state, the proposal was to create a central state, however, the Americans proposed, following the federal tradition in Bavaria, Baden Württemberg and the new German state was organized as a federation. The name or Bundesrepublik Deutschland Federal Republic of Germany was, however, first used by the French occupation authority in Württemberg-Hohenzollern in May 1947.

Between February and June 1948 in London decided the fate of three of the four occupation zones in Germany. The aim of the conference call of the Six Powers, the three allies, along with the Benelux was planning the reconstruction of the German state, creating the basis for the development of democracy, where the international community also participate. The conditions for this would lay the groundwork for a federal and democratic German state, through the reorganization of the three areas occupied in the West. For its implementation, it was agreed that empowerment of the newly appointed state Ministrospresidentes to convene a constitutional parliamentary assembly.

The six powers would monitor the work of the Assembly and establish certain limits and conditions. Before they finished the work in London, the United States Government had already launched the Marshall Plan, which was possible thanks to the monetization of western Germany, which by now had been constituted and, by agreement of the three powers , in the "Trizone", in order to generate their economic self-preservation.

zone of occupation in the hands of the Soviet Union continued meanwhile in another direction. Due to the onset of the Cold War, thanks in part to the Truman Doctrine, the Soviet Union was not present at this Conference. The East-West conflict had begun, the Truman Doctrine was strengthened by the Marshall Plan to restore Europe's economy, prompting the Soviet Union's reaction to the creation of two socialist institutions as polar opposites to the U.S.: the Bureau of Communist Information and the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance.

The Western strategy focused first creating a strong market economy and more or less stable, then backed up a democratic state there. At first the idea was not well received, because it was believed that the market economy had led to the rise of Hitler. CSU (Christian Democratic Union) and SPD (Social Democratic Party) particularly had in mind a centralized economy.

Between the years 1947 and 48 there were large differences between the two parties of the center who survived the Third Reich and today make up the German government: the Union and the SPD, the first presented his idea of \u200b\u200bthe German Constitution, with a strong federal influence, while the SPD condemned this as separatism, wanting to ensure the unity of territory. The three occupying powers had different interests: the United Kingdom had no preference for a centralized state or federal one, but rather was concerned about the union of Trizone the Soviet occupation zone, the United States proposed a federal state, while the French were not hasten the formation of the German state, they preferred that the occupation would last longer and could attach to their territory in the region of Saarland. However, they proposed to organize a federal state with international control Ruhrgebiet, area mining industry, which then would the basis for the creation of the European Union. It was finally decided by the Federal Government, whose tradition was already in the history of Germany and also would not be a hindrance to future union with the Soviet occupation zone.

London agreements were not well received in Germany. Along with the announcement of a statute of occupation, there were three documents, known as the Frankfurt Documents. On July 1 was called Ministrospresidentes of the western areas, five Social Democrats, five of the union and a liberal, to deliver documents. The first, the Ministrospresidentes empowered the Länder to convene a constitutional assembly in which a democratic state should organize organized in a federal system in which fundamental rights were guaranteed, the Constitution should be subsequently approved by the Military Governors. They wanted to prevent the Governors dictate the terms of the Constitution and to give legitimacy, was actually drafted by the Germans themselves, so they gave the ministers a term to display the document. The meeting date would be later than September 1, 1948.

The day after the delivery of documents Frankfurt, Ministrospresidentes states or Länder met between 8 and July 10, 1948 in Rittersturz in Koblenz. Agreements in Koblenz ( Koblenzer Beschluss ) ministers declared their acceptance of the Frankfurt Documents, however, warned against the creation of a West German state, because in his view could pave the way for a separation of Germany . He also rejected the Occupation Statute. This obviously upset the military governors, who sought to invalidate the London Conference and the Frankfurt Documents. Meanwhile, the Soviets reacted to the monetization of West Germany and the Marshall Plan with the blockade of West Berlin, kicking off the hostilities of the Cold War. This situation served as a catalyst for the decision of the Germans and the basis for greater pressure from the United States. Only through the formation of a Western state might contain Soviet power in the rest of Europe.

few days

Later, reunited the Ministers and finally accepted the conditions of the Conference Gobernadores.Durante Niederwald Castle proposed drafting a Basic Law , not a constitution. There was talk of a "partnership interest in quality management" (Carlo Schmid) rather than a West German state. Similarly, it was proposed a Parliamentary Council, in place of a Constituent Assembly that drafted and whose members are elected by local chambers. Was agreed the ratification of the Basic Law by them themselves and not by the people, as proposed by the Governors.

Between 10 and 23 August 1948 held the call Verfassungskonvent Herrenchiemsee auf. On the island of Herrenchiemsee officials met representatives from each state to establish the basis on which the Parliamentary Council should work. The assembly should be formed by administrative authorities rather than elected officials, was why political parties were not invited. The discussion was crystallized in the Constitutional Convention that contained important points from which they build the Basic Law. A basic principle for the Council was called "Abbreviated Constitution", ie it should be a brief interim Basic Law. Another basic principle was "Bonn and Weimar no", ie learn from the mistakes of the first German republic. As already noted, was important to stress that a constitution would be the fundamental rule a united Germany, so now it gave only a Basic Law to organize the Western state of occupied Germany temporarily. In the Preamble of the Basic Law was established until 1989, German reunification as a fundamental purpose, it was governed by Article 23. This article was the basis for reunification in the constitution of the two Germanies and was later modified to accommodate the rules for the relationship of the German Federal Republic with the European Union.

The September 1, 1948 began the work of the Parliamentary Council in Bonn on a school of pedagogy. 70 representatives for 9 months formed the basis of the Federal Republic of Germany. Members of this Parlamentarischer Rat are known as the "Fathers of the Basic Law." The Mothers of the Basic Law or Grundgesetz des Mütter were only four: Elisabeth Selbert, Friederike Nadig, Helene Wessel and Helene Weber. Elisabeth Selbert imposed hard to achieve mainstream in the drafting of the equality between men and women finally enshrined in Article 3.2. Parties were represented with a greater presence in the Landtag of each state, the presidents of each fraction were: Anton Pfeiffer (CDU / CSU), Carlo Schmid (SPD) and Theodor Heuss (Liberal). Council came out the first chancellor, Konrad Adenauer, who was also President of the Council, the first Federal President Theodor Heuss, the first President of the Constitutional Court, Hermann Höpken-Aschoff, 16 local and 9 federal ministers as well as 37 federal deputies.

Carlo Schmid, called the true father of the German Basic Law 1949, who was characterized German constitutionalism under the slogan "Never Again." Never again should the President be empowered to appoint the Chancellor. Never again should the Parliament have the power to abrogate fundamental rights, the rule of law or democracy. Never again could come to power a party contrary to the Constitution. To ensure that the Basic Law was formed by the principles given priority allies resorted to spying on their constituents. Calls were heard and opened his mail, inviting them to eat and take to ask about the Council's work.

After the tough debates on legislation that would form part of the Basic Law, and the lessons they need to secure both the failed Weimar Republic and Third Reich and the Second War, the 8th May 1949, at 23 hours and 55 minutes, four years after the capitulation, was approved by a majority of the Rat Parlamentarischer the Basic Law with 53 votes in favor and 12 against by the CSU (Bayern ) and the KPD (Communist Party). On the 12th of May was accepted by the Military Governors of the areas British, French and American. Although it should be mentioned that in early 1949, the Government of the United States expressed doubts about the creation of a West German state and weighed dilomáticos plans for the creation of a united and neutral Germany a gradual troop withdrawal.

According to Article 144.1 of the Basic Law required its acceptance by two-thirds of the popular representations of the Länder. The only representative to vote against was the Landtag Bayern, on the night of 19 to 20 May 1949, with 101 against and 63 votes in favor. We rejected the constitution, but recognized its validity. Arguments against were mostly Grundgesetz CSU representatives, while deputies from the SPD and the FDP voted in favor. Members of the CSU is manifested by a federalism that would give greater powers to the Senate (Bundesrat) to participate in the legislative process. However, Grundgesetz or Basic Law binding on the state of Bayern as two-thirds of all the Länder passed.

After ratification by all the Länder, was published and promulgated the Basic Law by the President and Vice President of Parlamentarischer Rat on May 23, 1949 at a festive session. In accordance with Article 145.2, the Grundgesetz entered into force in the course of that day, ie the German Federal Republic since the night there for the May 24, 1949 at 00:00 pm.

In 2009, Germany also celebrated the 90 anniversary of the Constitution of the Weimar Republic, a document that was certainly central to the drafting of the Basic Law of Bonn. However, the assembly of Bonn correct the big mistakes of Weimar: non vinculatoriedad of Rights and the lack of regulation or constitutional control by setting the broad powers of the President. Sets as the cornerstone of the legal system human dignity in Article 1 together with article 20 which states that the German state will be a social and democratic state of law, with separation of powers held in a federal republic, whose powers are directly linked to the Constitution, the law and the law. These two articles are immutable and form the basis on which to build the German state and its laws.

The Grundgesetz is now a stable system it can only be reformed through the formula itself provides in article 79 or dissolved in accordance with Article 146. Organize a parliamentary government, where the executive is divided into a chancellor or head of government, elected in Bundestag lower house and a president or head of state, elected by an ad hoc body. The legislature is responsible to two chambers: The Bundestag or House of Representatives and the Bundesrat equivalent to the Senate or House of federal representation. The judiciary is responsible to the federal courts and the Constitutional Court. Another big difference with the Weimar Constitution is the clause of eternity or Ewigkeitsklausel , which prohibits the amendment of Articles 1 and 20, which closes down the possibility of a law as " Ermächtigungsgesetz "or empowerment law that gave Hitler unlimited power. Establishes constructive vote of no confidence and political parties established by the Constitution giving privileges, but it establishes the possibility of ban if they are contrary to the constitutional values \u200b\u200band principles.

The Grundgesetz has been amended about 60 times. In 1949 consisted of 146 items for 2007 was already 184. He has had at least five major revisions in 1968 rules were introduced to the state of emergency in 1989 to German reunification in 1992 Modified membership in the European Union in 1994 included the rights to the environment and animal rights and in 2006 conducted a major reform of federalism, which is still "on probation."

Finally, last year it was also the Berlin Wall and the beginning of German reunification. On November 9, 1989 it finally happened that not only the preamble and Article 23 of the Basic Law of Bonn waited patiently for 40 years

Aware of their responsibility God and human beings, animated by the desire to maintain national unity and state and serve world peace as an equal member of a United Europe, the German town of Baden states, Bayern, Bremen, Hamburg, Hessen, Niedersachsen, Nordrhein-Westfalen, Rheinland-Pfalz, Schleswig-Holstein, Württemberg-Baden and Württemberg-Hohenzollern, to a new state order to life a time of transition, based on their constituent power, this Basic Law has been established for the Federal Republic of Germany. Same also protects those Germans who were prevented their participation. The entire German people is called to end in complete and self-determination the unity and peace of Germany.

(Preamble of the Basic Law until 1990)

Counter Strike Bot_add_ct

German Militarism to 100 years of the Revolution

Militarism to 100 years of the Revolution
By Miguel Angel Granados Chapa

The President Felipe Calderon has kept a close relationship with the military, if it depends on him as supreme commander, also imposes its rules and visions of national life

The Madero revolution triumphed in May 1910 following the military defeat Federal Ciudad Juárez, which has become a century later the military domain, returning the troops to attempt to bringing security. That same Madero revolution, whose centenary was recalled yesterday, was defeated by a coup led by a traitorous general, after other senior military leaders (Bernardo Reyes in the lead) had rebelled against institutions.

That revolution, therefore, included the fight against military rule that had to be reduced by the revolutionary process itself. And yet, his first century has been celebrated with signs of militarization, reinforced that this government has introduced since its inception in December 2006. Lacking political support, has relied on its own that gives the PRI and their legitimacy questioned, President Felipe Calderon has kept a close relationship with the military, if it depends on him as supreme commander, also imposes its rules and visions of national life.

yesterday, the sports parade was replaced by a military character, and postponed to next Saturday. For decades it had been established that the Army, Air Force, the Navy will be displayed in the streets of Mexico City and major cities on September 16 and November 20 that those spaces were occupied by athletes. This year, however, there were two military parades, plus other festivals same character. It is the sign of the times. This is to show ordinary citizens the power of the armed forces to maintain the good image people have of them constant despite the numerous violations of the law and no longer limited to human rights violations that not a few of its members committed in his dubious public security functions.

In the same vein, just this Thursday, the Senate Executive presented an initiative to militarize the army, if it fits the expression. This is a draft amendment of the Organic Law of the Army and Air Force, and the law of promotions and rewards of both clusters, whose purpose is that the secretary National Defense-not the President, but the highest-ranking military personnel, has provided administrative and professional services to integrate the fight against organized crime. Currently, 40 percent of just over 200 thousand soldiers that depend on the Department of Defense is engaged in administrative work (quartermaster are called in military speak) and professional duties, are mainly doctors and engineers and technicians in various branches, trained in military establishments, but only in the disciplines of the specialty and not necessarily in the use of weapons. The mechanism is to expedite the reform by the reclassification, ie the assignment of members of the Army and Air Force to a service or non-native weapon. (Arms in military terms is called not only the instruments of attack and defense in which management is seeking to be experts, but the branches into which the corporation, are three: infantry, cavalry and artillery.)

Although Government is a measurement made by the National Institute of Statistics and Geography, are to take into account the data provided the Seventh National Survey on Insecurity. The Marina was rated 8.3 on a scale of one to 10, and enjoys the confidence of 55 percent of respondents, although a much smaller proportion, 43.3 percent recognized effectiveness in performance. The Army, in turn, is slightly below the indicators: it has a rating of 8.1, 52.5 confidence and approval for its performance of 41.1 percent. (Federal Police, however, has largely been the daughter of the military institutions, and whose maturity would allow the return of soldiers and sailors to their quarters, is poorly situated to the pub-lic opinion: your score is just aprobato-ria: 6.8 per cent, "trust in it only a quarter of the surveyed population (24.6 percent) and so-so 15.1 percent is efficient performance.

mili-tary image fades in places where military installations functions in public safety: Friday 12 pitched just 200 soldiers in the town of Heliodorus Guerrero Castillo, and often the complaints against them, "a neighbor took him 20 thousand dollars and other jewelry of his wife. All people are terrified by the unexpected arrival of the military, patrolling pointing their guns at the residents and the houses that tumble detection device indicates its doors for the revisions, "say plaintiffs state commission on human rights and even to XXXV command of the Military Zone (La Jornada, November 16).

Sunday 14, as reported the next day the Ministry of National Defense, "two civilians die trying to evade a checkpoint operating a mixed group. "The commander of Military Zone XXX reported that at one Sunday morning" in a checkpoint in the town of Jalpa de Mendez, Tabasco, established by the Joint Operation Group Tabasco, it marked the end to a Ford Expedition SUV, with license plates WPD 8248 Tabasco state, with two civilians on board who tried to evade the checkpoint said, so personal the Department of the Navy / Army of Mexico member of this group powered weapons fire, died at the scene the two crew of civilian vehicle, Quie-tions were identified as Victor two Manuel Chan Javier, 21 years old, (and) Ramón Pérez Román, 23 years old.

"Inside the vehicle squad said a pistol cal. 380 mm, a magazine for such a gun, two rounds of ammunition of the same caliber shell casings and a cal. 380 mm." As has happened in similar episodes in Sinaloa, Nuevo Leon and Tamaulipas, the military version seems to correspond to the facts. At the request of the Attorney General of Tabasco, the General of the Republic and the investigation brought the case and is available to the 14 present members of state corporations in the operation (six ministerial agents, six state security, two policemen local roads.) Not so with the 10 members of the Army, seven of the Navy and two from the Federal Police. Is that the relatives of the victims claim that their children were not armed and were engaged in legitimate trade. Governor Andres Granier endorsed these sayings, ensuring that the boys killed belonged to "honorable families."

In such cases the army has set up to hide the bad-tempered scenes action of some of its members and, he admits that crimes were committed, makes the military prosecutors bring to justice those suspected military, although the victims are civilians . Therefore, and to prevent impunity for the military offenders, a current humanitarian progress of Mexican and international agencies, civil justice to prosecute the military in these trances. American Court of Human Rights has issued two rulings against the Mexican government for actions of this kind, but Calderon's government was short on the implementation of legal reform that urges the failure of international justice, and is frozen in the Senate.

say, finally, that the command structure of the Department of Defense is in the hands of a group exemplified in the now Major General Augusto Moisés García Ochoa, whose rise to the maximum range was announced Thursday. He led the Narcotics Intelligence Center national, under the Secretary Enrique Cervantes Aguirre, was private secretary to Secretary Ricardo Clemente Vega Garcia and Director General for Administration (the powerful office that handles procurement), under Gen. Guillermo Galvan, who managed to Members 13 billion pesos for integrating 18 new battalions of infantry, but at the last minute refused.


miguelangel@granadoschapa.com




Copyright © Grupo Reforma Servicio Informativo

Release Date: November 21, 1910