Talk:Jens Böhrnsen

Edit war

Do not start an edit war! He is the acting president according to German Grundgesetz. You can read it at www.bundespraesident.de or e.g. http://bremen.de/aktuelles/bundespraesident-koehler-tritt-zurueck-15399341 -- Chtrede (talk) 13:44, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Is this the "discussion" I was told to read. No matter how you put it, Böhrnsen is NOT President of Germany - he is filling in for the role but he is President of the Bundesrat. As such, he acts for the President when the latter is not avaiable. He (and his predecessors as President of the Bundesrat) have done so before. The office of Bundespräsident is currently vacant.

If anyone is edit-warring, it is you! Str1977 ^(talk) 13:53, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

OFFICIAL STATEMENT IN GERMANY: "BÖRNSEN TOOK OVER THE HIGHEST POSITION IN THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY". Believe it or not! -- Chtrede (talk) 13:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Are you making official statements now? You link above never speaks of Böhrnsen as Bundespräsident. Unsurprisingly, because he isn't Bundespräsident and probably never will be. (And "highest office" will not do!) Just wait until the election! Str1977 ^(talk) 13:59, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I put down ACTING President of Germany, which he is. Please note that no German President has ever resigned under the current constitution (1949). The precedents are from Weimar in 1925, and the president leaving the country doesn't count. Ericl (talk) 14:38, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

"Please note that no German President has ever resigned under the current constitution"

Not true!! Lübke resigned from office, though this was shortly before his term was up anyway. Acting presidents have no business in appearing in this template as they never were Presidents.

Hitler of course is a tricky one as he was not President either but his stint as head of state lasted 11 years and the Presidency was not simply vacant but de-facto abolished. (But, I accept a case can be made for his removal.)

Why can't people just wait for the elections and then see who will be president. Str1977 ^(talk) 14:58, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

"Acting presidents have no business in appearing in this template as they never were Presidents."

If you look across Wikipedia, you will see that templates are made for Acting Presidents and Acting Prime Ministers. The precedent on Wikipedia dictates that the templates appear. Stop fighting it. Therequiembellishere (talk) 16:14, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Looking across WP is a fallacy as just because it is done wrongly in other articles, doesn't mean that we should be consistent in being wrong. Furthermore, things are different in different states, nations, constitutions.

Böhrnsen occupies two distinct offices: first, he is Mayor and President of the Senate of Bremen, governing his particular state. Second, he for the year 2010 is President of the German Bundesrat. He doesn't hold any further state offices. However, as holder of the latter office, he fills the role of Federal President whenever that is needed, such as it is now.

Böhrnsen is not separately Vice-President of Germany.

Placing people like Böhrnsen, Simons, Luther in the succession line of presidents is a travesty. Nobody will remember the latter two as acting presidents, nobody will remember Böhrnsen. That they discharge the duties is important for the state to keep on running but not for history. Str1977 ^(talk) 16:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I wish people actually took a look at the German constitution (Article 57)... German law does not provide for a temporary, acting or vice president. If the elected president should become incapacitated, die or should he office otherwise end (as happenend in this case through a resignation), the current head of the Bundesrat assumes the powers and duties normally held by the president and is as such head of state. However he does not actually asumme the office (as is the case other countries, e.g. the US). This means that currently Germany does not have a federal president (acting or otherwise), with the duties of the president (e.g. the signing of bills etc) being looked after by the President of the Bundesrat. Refer http://www.tagesschau.de/inland/koehlerruecktritt102.html (in German) :

Battis: Kraft der Verfassung übernimmt der Präsident des Bundesrates die Vertretung des Bundespräsidenten - im Moment ist dies der Bremer Bürgermeister Jens Böhrnsen. Damit ist er natürlich nicht Bundespräsident. Die Vertretungs-Regelung greift auch bei einer Krankheit des Bundespräsidenten oder bei einer längeren Auslandsreise.

Travelbird (talk) 16:41, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Remembering them is irrelevant. Do people remember Karl Dönitz as president? Or Joseph Goebbels as Chancellor? Or Benjamin Harrison as an American President? Hardly. The matter is that someone was indeed in the office between person A and person B and that the baton didn't pass directly from one to the other. Not putting the provisional/caretaker/acting/interim/regent between them would be misleading and denying fact. Therequiembellishere (talk) 17:12, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Sure, individual memory is not important. That's not what I meant. Dönitz, Goebbels, Harrison all held these respective offices. But it would be a false statement to list German presidents as "Arnold - Heuß - Lübke - Heinemann - Scheel - Carstens - Weizsäcker - Herzog - Rau - Köhler - Böhrnsen - X", just as it would be wrong to list German Chancellors as "Adenauer - Erhard - Kiesinger - Brandt - Scheel - Schmidt - Kohl - Schröder - Merkel". The "acting"s do not belong into the lineage. Scheel never was German Chancellor and neither Arnold nor Böhrnsen ever were German Presidents - the baton indeed passes directly from Brandt to Schmidt and from Köhler to his eventual successor. The inbetween is just a caretaker. The caretaker indeed is mentioned in the caretaker's bio - otherwise I would even keep out that he is Bundesratspräsident, seldomly a reason for excitement. Str1977 ^(talk) 17:18, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Travelbird, Böhrnsen is not the president (§§ 55ff of the German constitution, which really is not a constitution either). Böhrnsen may however enjoy acting as if he was the president, the constitution entitles him to do so - for a maximum of 30 days that is. Skäpperöd (talk) 17:15, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

But what of acting officeholders who hold office for a year or more like recent acting prime ministers Gordon Bajnai of Hungary and Jan Fischer of the Czech Republic? Therequiembellishere (talk) 17:36, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

What of them? In a list of, say, head of states, I would include the caretaker but a sort of marked format, e.g. indent, italics.

If they are left-overs, e.g. the resigned PM still in office until a new one is appointed I would note that with the dates (if he actually has resigned - some simply have lost an election and manage to avoid sucession until a new election results in their victory).

I would not include them in the infobox or in sucession boxes. I would put "vacant, next held by X" or "X, after a vacancy of".

But let me make one thing clear: when I talk about acting office-holders I am speaking of those that by virtue of another office "slip" into the function. If a king or president formally appoints or a parliament formally elects (whatever is the constitutional way) a caretaker government, then that government is actually in office.

The way I see it, Fischer was elected formally correct way though on the understanding that upcoming elections would settle things. And Gordon Bajnai was also elected PM with no restrictions, only he didn't run in the following elections.

The gist is: if person X is formally provided with office A, I am for including him. If X however simply discharges of the duties of office A by virtue of him holding office B, then he is merely B and not A.

Str1977 ^(talk) 17:55, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

This is not how it works. Any state (well, almost) must have a head of state. How they appoint him or her is really less relevant. Public international law will consider a certain person to be head of state like any other head of state regardless of internal issues like whether he holds the office of "President" or how he was appointed. There is no question that Jens Böhrnsen is now the head of state of Germany as defined by public international law. Even by internal German law, he is the head of state. I find it ridiculous that someone attempts to remove him this position in the article. To people outside Germany, the most important thing that is to say about him (at the moment) is that he is acting head of state of Europe's largest country. This is more important outside Germany, than being mayor of an obscure (compared to being head of state of a country with 80 million inhabitants) city-state. The article does not assert that he is President, it makes it very clear that he is acting head of state in his capacity as President of the Federal Council. Josh Gorand (talk) 14:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

It could be helpful to ask: Who is the head of state of Germany at this moment? The question must have an answer. Horst Köhler is definitely not the head of state. Whoever is the head of state needs to identified as such in his article and other relevant articles, like any other head of state. Sources clearly identify Jens Böhrnsen as the head of state[1] who is representing Germany as such internationally[2]. Even while technically not quite correct, official German sources like the government-run broadcaster DW describes him as temporary President[3]. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung describes him as "Kommissarischer Bundespräsident" too [4], leaving no doubt that he is head of state and enjoying all constitutional rights as such.

I urge both parties to stop revert-warring and accept the current legally precise version[5] which identities him as acting head of state in his capacity as President of the Federal Council (not as "President" and not as "nothing at all"). Josh Gorand (talk) 15:06, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Sure, he is acting head of state. Nobody is arguing that he is "nothing at all". It just simply has no business in appearing in info- or succession boxes as this is NOT a separate office he holds. The "President of the Federal Council" is already there and IMHO its only reason for being there is that something special happened during his stint. If Böhrnsen had not assumed the function of acting head of state now, his presidency of the federal council would be a non-notable formality.

Any state has a head of state (really, without any exception) but not all of the time. Currently, Germany has no head of state, just somebody filling for the functions because the things the president is supposed to do have to be done.

The office designated as head of state is the one that counts. This should be in sucession boxes - functions do not have a succession. The formal way of entering an office described above is the distinguishing criterion between actual offices and mere functions.

The powers of the President of the Federal Council are formal, chairing sessions. As acting head of state, he will not much either. Furthermore, all these rest solely on Böhrnsen being chief of government in Bremen. His whole importance rests on this office, if he loses it today, he will not have all the other stuff. Therefore his Bremen office must come first.

Another thing, someone has inserted the wrong designation "upper house" for the Bundesrat. The Bundesrat is not part of a bicamerical parliament but a separate legislative and adminstrative body. In contrast to the British House of Lords or the U.S. Senate, it does not hold greater significance or honour than the Bundestag. The latter is the central body of the German political system and its president being considered the second-highest office after the Federal President. Str1977 ^(talk) 08:11, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Germany has a head of state as defined by international law. It's not sufficient to have President of the Federal Council in the info box because this is not the same as being head of state per se. His additional powers as head of state are distinct from the position. He didn't succeed Peter Müller last year as acting head of state. Josh Gorand (talk) 14:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC) 

Germany has a head of state (sort of) but does not mean that this has to be included in infoboxes or fake sucession boxes. All the powers Böhrnsen has (on the federal level) come the fact he is, for this year, president of the Federal Council and now jumps in for the short time that there is no Federal President. There is no need to put the "acting head of state" into the infobox. Str1977 ^(talk) 17:19, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

You are the only one who claims that being head of state of Europe's largest nation is not important enough to be in the infobox. Why can't you respect the compromise version that took into account both your concern that he is not holding the office of President and the concerns of everyone else that being acting head of state of Germany is important? His position as mayor of Bremen is rather obscure compared to being head of state of Germany, I think most other language versions of this article were created after he became head of state. Josh Gorand (talk) 18:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC) 

Because he is not head of state but simply acting head of state. His position as mayor of Bremen is one of actual importance, albeit in a very very limited sphere (the smallest German state), and the basis for all the rest. To make a U.S. comparison: when Senator X of Y is the oldest in the Senate, what is more important - that he is Senator of Y or that he is the oldest?

Sure his short stint as acting head of state creates more interest in other countries but that is totally irrelevant for the actual question as I am nowhere suggesting that we hide the fact that he is (soon was) acting head of state. It just isn't notable enough to deserve a separate section in the infobox or a separate sucession box. Str1977 ^(talk) 15:40, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The day before he became head of state: Biographies in 10 Wikipedia editions. After he became head of state: Biographies in 22 editions. Josh Gorand (talk) 18:27, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes. True. So what?! Str1977 ^(talk) 15:40, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok guys. It's not that difficult. Obviously he was not the Federal President of Germany, not even acting, because if he had been he would have needed to step down as Mayor of Bremen, as the German President is not allowed to occupy any other office during his/ her incumbency. BUT he of course was the head of state of Germany. So he should be noted as 'head of state' but not as 'Federal President of the Federal Republic of Germany'. By the way: During the time that he filled in as head of state, he has to suspend his position as President of the Bundesrat! That sould be noted! 27.32.7.14 (talk) 06:36, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Clarification regarding Article 57

There seems to be a great deal of confusion on this matter, in the anglophone media especially.

For historical reasons, German Basic Law does not provide for a line of succession, neither for the Chancellor nor for the President. It only provides for the powers to be temporarily transferred to a different office. Upon the resignation of the president, all all powers and responsibilities of that office were temporarily transferred to the President of the Bundesrat which is currently Mr. Böhrnsen. The office of federal president remains vacant until a new president is elected.

Btw: The same would be true for the Chancellor as well : Even though there is an office of vice-chancellor, upon e.g. the death of Mrs. Merkel, Mr. Westerwelle would assume the duties of Chancellor but he would not assume the office of chancellor. He would remain Vice-Chancellor until either he or someone else is elected and appointed Chancellor. Travelbird (talk) 19:49, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

This needs to stop (infobox, acting head of state)

Once again a user unilaterally removed the compromise version, that is as neutral and formally correct as possible[6]. Then he was reverted by a different user[7], who also noted "You really need to stop. The is the most compromised position possible and you still don't like it? Ridiculous"[8]. The same user as before unilaterally removes it again, for like the 20th time[9]. In the meantime, someone adds the less accurate "acting President" to the infobox, as has happened dozens of times before. And the user who is acting unilaterally removes it, asking "how about searching consensus for a change?" [10].

I could say: The consensus version has been here all the time, and is really only opposed by a single person. This is getting extremely tedious. Each time he removes the consensus version, some other person will eventually come along and add something like "President" or "acting President", instead of the much more formally correct compromise version that should be acceptable to everyone. Josh Gorand (talk) 05:55, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

There is no compromise version and there is no consensus to include such a box. Thus far onlyone editor - YOU! - actively pursues its inclusion. To use an even worse version ("acting President") is ridiculous as your "compromise" turns out to be the exact same thing with different stripes, with the exact same fallacies.

I hold that for every office the man held or holds, there should be a infobox section and a sucession box - thus far he has held two major political offices. That he acted as head of state was part of his office as President of the Federal Council, not a separate office. He simply filled in. Str1977 ^(talk) 09:57, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Although I normally don't get involved in these kinds of disputes, I would have to say that I tend to agree with Str1977. The fact that as head of the Bunderat Mr. Böhrnsen temporarily discharged the duties of the president (i.e. signed a couple of laws, greeted a couple of ambassadors and guests) doesn't really warrant an extra infobox. Look at it this way : I am sure there are days when President Obama is ill and Vice President Biden fills in to meet a foreign head of state. That doesn't warrant an infobox "Acted in lieu of president on January 15".

The fact that he filled in should be noted in the article, but an extra infobox for a singular occation is just too prominent. And indeed: If such an infobox is included, eventually some other person will get confused and change "acting head of state" to "acting president" again - which is wrong as we all know. Btw : "technically "acting head of state" may also be incorrect, as reading the German constitution, it is not all that clear that "the duties of the Federal President shall be taken up by the President of the Bundesrat" provides for a transfer of such a title. It simply provided for a transfer of power. In a way it works in the same way as an inter-regnum : When the old king dies someone - which may be the heir apparent but sometimes (e.g. in the case that he is a minor) also a close relative - assumes power until such a time that the new king is crowned. That however does not mean that such a person is "acting king" or even "acting head of state". Travelbird (talk) 18:21, 3 July 2010 (UTC)