Chancellor Merkel’s Reign of Lawlessness

The AfD (Alternative für Deutschland, Alternative for Germany) has initiated a lawsuit against the chancelloress because of her three-year (so far) mass importation of illegal migrants, which lacks any legitimacy under German law or the federal constitution.

One of the things I like about Germans is that they’re sticklers for the rules. If anything brings the Kanzlerin down, it will be her abject failure to obey the rules.

Many thanks to Ava Lon for the translation, and to Vlad Tepes for the subtitling:

Video transcript:

00:05   The lawsuit we filed in middle of April is about not removing (because
00:08   this observation is the [object of the] complaint) but about at least
00:11   acknowledging the reign of lawlessness. You all know that Mr. Seehofer
00:16   talked in February 2016 about the reign of lawlessness in Germany.
00:25   So fundamentally we are putting into practice what Mr. Seehofer announced many times, but
00:30   never put into practice; but we know that about Mr. Seehofer.
00:41   In a nutshell, it’s about — Mr. Förster will explain the judicial part,
00:46   that we filed a complaint about a dispute among the branches.
00:51   There are several constitutional branches: among them the Federal Government
00:56   and the parliamentary constitutional branch. And we think that the Federal Government competed
01:00   — as the constitutional branch — with the parliament concerning its rights.
01:03   Though there are possibilities, following paragraph 18,
01:06   section 4, of temporarily suspending the basic principle of border security
01:11   under [certain] completely restricted conditions, which the federal government
01:16   obviously made use of in September 2015. That, however,
01:20   justifies neither that the Federal Government
01:23   — as the executive branch — might question the foundations of the German state
01:27   by [inviting] a mass immigration of millions [of people], [causing] billions
01:32   in expenses, nor [that the government] intends to change, or at least consider that
01:37   it might change the entire social system. This is a decision
01:40   of principle: let’s keep the borders closed or let’s open them.
01:44   This is a decision of principle, which from our point of view can only be decided
01:47   by the legislature and not the executive — the government, the administration of Frau Merkel.
01:52   If Frau Merkel could do that at all for two or three days when that huge wave came from Hungary,
01:57   she could have said: let’s make a two- or three-day exception, and afterwards we do it the way until
02:02   the asylum law provides the residence permits. But in the meantime
02:05   we’ve had this state of emergency for two and a half years,
02:08   and from our point of view this is not OK.
02:18   The Federal Government
02:23   cannot simple dispose of existing laws. The Federal Government
02:28   is bound by law and order. This is completely clear; this is the division of power.
02:33   the Federal Government cannot say, now we find that one law is convenient,
02:38   and the other less convenient. No, there’s no dictator chancelloress;
02:43   she cannot exist, according to the law. The chancellor has to follow law and order,
02:49   and essential decisions, essential decisions
02:54   That concern our community, have to be decided in the Parliament. This has always,
02:58   since time immemorial, been decided like that
03:01   by the federal constitutional court, and here this is
03:04   totally decided; I cannot tell the Chancellor in the night and then say something contradictory
03:09   to Mr. de Maizière, who already prepared something else. It doesn’t work that way.
03:12   This is the reign of arbitrariness or the reign of lawlessness,
03:15   and it is not compatible with the constitution.

10 thoughts on “Chancellor Merkel’s Reign of Lawlessness

  1. I hope she gets shot and quartered for destabilizing the cultural, traditional and ethnic composition of Germany , costing the tax payer so much as well as sacrificing freedoms .

    I dont have faith in the legal system due to the individual members always ruling in favour of the present political dictates in order to keep their jobs . South Africa is now a Marxist state and the legal profession is ruling in its favour .

  2. Merkel makes up the rules as she goes along. One of her made-up rules is that asylum-seekers don’t have to comply with the law, they can do whatever they like with impunity.

  3. Unfortunately for the plaintiffs, from their arguments, the case is built on notions of reason rather than concrete statutes of the law. In other words, it will be up to the court to interpret what is a “reasonable” use of the exception in the law and what is not reasonable. So, the German passion for rules seems to go back to an interpretations of “reasonable”.

    I am inclining more to the point of view that a system of laws can’t be programmed like a computer. Not every contingency can be covered by exact laws, and so the functioning of a country depends on the adaptability and responsiveness of the government. In Germany, it appears to be almost impossible to get rid of the chancellor, regardless of her lawlessness. In fact, she still seems to enjoy the support of a majority or plurality of Germans.

    One of the features of a diverse society is that checks and balances often become irrelevant. People vote according to identity rather than according to issue, so it is frequently difficult to get a working majority on any side of any issue, leaving almost unprecedented power in the hands of the ruler….or, as it seems in the US, in the hands of the established bureaucracy.

  4. “One of the features of a diverse society is that checks and balances often become irrelevant.”

    Seems grimmly emblematic of what we experience nowadays. If really true and characterizing a developing trend we are on a very slippery slope leaving constitutional Republic and moving towards a bastardized version of “democracy” or rather a plebocracy where all what matters is the provider of bread and games …

  5. Merkel is a dictator (not surprising because she grew up a Red) abetted by her party and coalition partner, and the news media. Worst European leader since Hitler. The Hitler catastrophe was undone, at great cost, whereas the prospects for undoing this witch dictator’s disaster, whc is still unfolding, are open to very grave doubt in view of the much greater population growth of the imported feral savages.

  6. I recently read that Harvard is holding two graduation ceremonies. One for African-Americans and one for everyone else…
    I find this divisive racial segregation to be a troubling portent of things yet to come.
    Shall I attend the “Irish-American” ceremony and my future daughter-in-law attend the “Polish-American” ceremony and my next door neighbor attend the “Chinese-American” ceremony?
    Who gets what in this divisive hierarchy?
    Ms. Merkel seems to have it figured out.

    • Oh, Babs, don’t go to the Irish one unless you get there early. Otherwise, you’ll find the rest of us well-sauced before the speaker has warmed up. Even if it’s James Joyce.

      Maybe we could pick our ethnicities by deciding which cultural traits we admire. I’m going to be Vietnamese.

  7. The AFD should sue over white genocide. Genocide is a crime under international law. UN Resolution 260. It defines genocide as any attempt to eliminate a group by any means, in whole or in part. Specifically, Art. 2(c) state that genocide includes “Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.”

    Mass non-white immigration combined with forced assimilation and 24/7/365 miscegenation propaganda in ALL white countries and ONLY white countries is clearly a campaign to force blend white people out of existence. GENOCIDE

  8. I agree and I think that this is why we don’t hear any more about Chinese doing precisely that in Tibet: thousands of ethnic Chinese have moved in since the take over in 1950. I remember when Amnesty International actually was calling this dilution of Tibetan people by Han Chinese –
    a genocide. Not any more, or we could see similarities…

Comments are closed.