447
submitted 5 days ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/world@lemmy.world

Summary

Elon Musk criticized German President Frank-Walter Steinmeier on X, calling him an “anti-democratic tyrant” following Steinmeier’s speech opposing outside interference amid Germany’s political crisis.

Musk, who previously insulted German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, plans a public discussion with far-right AfD leader Alice Weidel, prompting accusations of endorsing far-right politics.

German Vice Chancellor Robert Habeck called Musk’s influence a threat to European democracy and urged action to limit his power.

Musk has also sparked controversy in the UK, aligning with right-wing figures like Nigel Farage and targeting PM Keir Starmer.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Eril@feddit.org 10 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

The Chancellor (now Scholz and before that Merkel) are the heads of government and are, in practice, more influential. Technically the president ("Bundespräsident"), which is the head of state, stands above the Chancellor and so does the president of parliament ("Bundestagspräsident"). But this is mostly a ceremonial hierarchy and while the president has to "check" laws and sign them to take effect, this is basically always happening. In general the president is mostly a ceremonial position.

You hear a lot more about the chancellor, because as head of government, they are the only ones actually involved in creating/changing laws (of the positions mentioned).

Edit: If my research is correct, it only happened 8 times since 1949 that a president did not sign a law that was accepted by parliament and the last time was 2006. So it really is a pretty rare occurrence.

[-] boonhet@lemm.ee 2 points 4 days ago

I think that's roughly the same here in Estonia, except we call our head of gvt prime minister.

[-] barsoap@lemm.ee 1 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

The "checking laws" thing is actually not mentioned in the constitution but the argument is that the president is a constitutional organ, and it cannot be expected from a constitutional organ to sign an unconstitutional law when another constitutional organ puts it on their desk. Just as you can't expect a notary to notarise an unconscionable contract.

Parliament is free to sue when that happens, and the constitutional court will decide, not the president, if the court says the law is fine the president has to sign.

In Germany everyone can bring any law affecting them before the constitutional court to have it checked, the president's implicit right is similar but they can do it even if not personally affected, and before it comes into force.

this post was submitted on 31 Dec 2024
447 points (96.3% liked)

World News

39467 readers
1734 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS