[ad_1]
Democratic political sin? Today, the National Council is discussing the Corona legislation. Renowned constitutional attorneys view this with concern.
Constitutional lawyer Felix Uhlmann placed a provocation during the summer holidays. He described the draft Federal Council consultation in the “WOZ” as an “enabling law”. A term that has historically been charged by the National Socialists.
The Federal Council then weakened its original draft of the Covid Law 19. The constitutional law professor at the University of Zurich would perhaps no longer express himself as he says.
Covid-19 Law in the National Council from 9.30 am live
But there are still criticisms about it: the Covid-19 law empowers the Federal Council to make far-reaching decisions in numerous areas: “Our system does not provide for this authorization. The idea is that the parliament, when the most immediate urgency has passed, makes its own decision. “
“The law contains nine formulations in the style of ‘The Federal Council may’. However, it does not materially specify what should actually be decided. “If the law simply delegates these issues, it would be problematic, according to Uhlmann:” Basically, it is the parliament’s job to decide all the important issues itself.
Uhlmann locates a conflict with the constitution: once the pandemic emergency is over, the parliament should regulate the concrete aid for cultural workers in a law.
Keystone
With the law, the parliament once again strengthens the powers of the Federal Council rather than its own voice, criticizes Markus Schefer, professor of constitutional law at the University of Basel.
‘The bill does not contain provisions on how Parliament can participate. In the current situation, it seems to me that the most important concern is that the Federal Assembly is involved in the processes, ”said Schefer. This results in greater democratic legitimacy.
Is the constitution getting scratched?
Uhlmann also criticizes a second point. These are the requirements in which the Federal Council can issue emergency ordinances. The constitution requires an emergency situation; but that is weakened by current law.
It only says that the Federal Council can use the powers to the extent necessary to deal with the Covid 19 epidemic, summarizes Uhlmann. “Respectively, to put it a bit unpleasantly, insofar as the Federal Council is of the opinion that it is still necessary. It seems to me that these are easier prerequisites to exercise such emergency legal powers, which do not correspond to what the constitution establishes. “
How is this criticism received in Parliament?
The State Councilor for the SP, Paul Rechsteiner, also spoke critically during the consultation process and spoke of an “undesirable state-political development with unforeseeable consequences.”
After the Federal Council weakened the draft consultation, for example by shortening the period of validity of the law, and after the main social commission dealt with the new law for hours, its president Rechsteiner says: ‘Parliament can to say no. But that would not benefit the population. “
The purpose of the law is to guarantee that aid in the social, but also cultural and media sphere, does not collapse.
Because: «It is a pragmatic law for a limited time. It must ensure that aid and measures, especially in the social sphere, but also in the cultural and media sphere, do not collapse, ”Rechsteiner said.
That sums up the basic problem: a politician will have to think twice before rejecting the current law because it would leave thousands of people to their fate.
