The First Senate of the Federal Constitutional Court under Ferdinand Kirchhof (m.) Is negotiating the care allowance .
There are party colleagues, battling it out in Karlsruhe a slugfest. The SPD governed in Hamburg as in the covenant. The comrades are actually agree: the care allowance, nor decided by black and yellow, is the wrong way. But only the Hamburg Senate, which has filed a constitutional challenge against the monthly output of 150 euros, may hold this position before the Federal Constitutional Court with verve. The Federal Ministry for Family Affairs has the thankless role of defending a law that must endorse it because the coalition agreement, which has the control of the house but always fought politically.
Family Secretary Detlef Scheele, the Federal Minister for Family Affairs Manuel Schwesig has sent a representative to Karlsruhe, must at the hearing not only forget his party affiliation, but also its past He has prepared as counsel at the Hamburg judicial authority and the application itself, he must refute now. If the man in his heart of hearts but hopes to lose in Karlsruhe, he can actually deliver a passable advocate?
The CSU, which has the spare capacity to Kita thought is skeptical. Thus, the Bavarian State Chancellery has sent even a small delegation to Karlsruhe. And CSU party boss Gerda Hasselfeldt had warned before the start of the trial: “We will be watching like a hawk that here the views of the Federal Government is playing and not a personal opinion.”
How do you find the care allowance?
But Kleindiek is a lawyer. And lawyers know that they have to make their own opinion, if the job requires it. But at Kleindiek is not up to the self-denial: “The opinion no political statements are subject to the care allowance” is his fig leaf. Politically, there are different views on this topic. “But not every political argument is also a constitutional argument. The policy needs a room for the decision. “
See the plaintiffs from Hamburg course not so tight. Family Senator Detlef Scheele leads to the well-known political arguments against the allowance: “No child, no young person should be lost,” he says. That was the goal in Hamburg – and “the care allowance law takes us there in the parade.” It was a “mortgage for our efforts to provide equal opportunities”
.
This is especially true for families with migration background: “Only care from the beginning allows opportunities from the beginning. Just as the children get equal start in the school career, “said Scheele. The monthly allowance, however, creates an incentive not to accept public offers and so keep the children away from education.
And the CSU must restrain themselves with political arguments in any way. Emilia Müller, Minister of the Bavarian State Chancellery, advocates that parents can choose according to their value system, how the child is looked after. “Many parents want to take themselves time for their children in the first years of life: The first words to witness the first steps.”
The development opportunities of the children hang their view, not from the use of government services. Also, two year old children with a migrant background are at home repealed as well. “Anyone who believes that children miss opportunities if they do not perceive the state’s offer, confused parents. Mothers and fathers are denied their competence “Sure is only one thing:”.. The family is crucial for the development of children and personal development “Whether beyond day care is good, I’m on the child
.
Join the conversation can Kleindiek, as it happens purely legal again: In the discussion on the question of whether the federal government was ever responsible to introduce the care allowance. Kleindiek argues that the care allowance is part of the public welfare – and for that the federal government has jurisdiction according to the Basic Law. Although the Agent of Hamburg, Margaret Schuler-Harms holds, however, that care allowance had nothing to do with public welfare, “Whoever voluntarily does not accept any public offering, is not in need of help.” In fact, the care allowance will only be paid if parents are not their children Send a subsidized by the government daycare. But Michael Sachs, government representatives, countered: The concept of care was “open to development” and should not be understood too narrowly. “Families are in need of help. And if they do not perceive the state’s offer, they remain so. “The public welfare is founded, the responsibility for child benefit and parental benefits. Anyone who thinks that the federal government was not responsible for the care allowance should logically be argued that even the parental allowance is a national matter.
More about
And yet the questions of the First Senate indicate chaired by the Vice-President Ferdinand Kirchhof out that she substantial have doubts about the competence of the federal government. Because for the public welfare, the federal government has only the so-called concurrent jurisdiction. That is, he may act in place of the countries, if that is necessary for the establishment of equal living conditions. If the different development level and the density of day care centers in the countries and the different attendance rate in East and West for a sufficient reason?
Constitutional Court Judge Paul makes no secret of his skepticism: Then the compensation would only be possible as long as there are not enough places, so to speak, as a “consolation prize”. But the law is not even directed to bridge a temporary gap, Paul. The aim was yet another: The 150 euros per month to provide freedom of choice between parents care in the day care center and at home
.
Here you can buy the rights to this article
<- ========= confirmation page.! Will be loaded by JS if submission is successful === ============ ->
.
No comments:
Post a Comment