Still busy

The topic of the U.S. Senate and its undemocratic nature (and more specifically, whether that undemocratic nature is a problem) is usually the bailiwich of Professor Levinson at Balkinization, but I wanted to flag a recent decision by the highest German court effectively delaying German ratification of the Lisbon treaty, a much maligned bit of legislation designed to further bind Europe together.

I haven't had the time to read the document entirely, and it is in a stilted translation of assuredly already stilted legal German. Nonetheless, I found the the following of some interest. The German court held that the Lisbon treaty as it was currently constituted violated the Basic Law. Why? Because a single German representative in the European parliament represented far more people than his or her colleague in Malta or Sweden or any smaller country:

"According to the Draft decision, a Member of the European Parliament elected in France would represent approximately 857,000 citizens of the Union and thus as many as a Member elected in Germany, who represents approximately 857,000 as well. In contrast, a Member of the European Parliament elected in Luxembourg would, however, only represent approximately 83,000 Luxembourg citizens of the Union, i.e. a tenth of them, in the case of Malta, it would be approximately 67,000, or only roughly a twelfth of them."

But is this always a violation of general democratic principles? No, said the German court. Just in a representative chamber of government:

"In federal states, such marked imbalances are, as a general rule, only tolerated for the second chamber existing beside Parliament; in Germany and Austria, the second chamber is the Bundesrat, in Australia, Belgium and the United States of America, it is the Senate".

The Court's decision implies all kinds of interesting things, but, alas, I must run. Perhaps later.