Does Germany need a President?

[Valmy]

Oh wow.  The Hohenzollern in that dude is striking.

[Neil]

Oh wow.  The Hohenzollern in that dude is striking.

No shit.  If he grew a mustache, he'd be as Kaiser as he could be.

[Fireblade]

An elected figurehead President seems pretty pointless to me. Figurehead monarchs at least have significant symbolism and provide a form of continuance and stability, as they rule for life and represent a dynasty that has ruled for generations. A figurehead President has none of that, and is not notable in any way. If Germany disbanded the office of the President, no one would notice.

When I saw the headline that Glock (or whatever) is the new President of Germany, my first thought was "What the fuck, I didn't know Merkel was on her way out".

Honestly, what the fuck does the President of Germany do?

[Syt]

Mostly: Hold flowery speeches, welcome heads of states and sign off federal laws. In the past they'd occasionally delay (even refuse? don't recall) signing off if they thought the law was against the constitution.

[Fireblade]

So.. basically nothing?

Btw, I met a comely fraulein from Southern Tyrol recently. I can't think of anything more exotic than a German Italian.. if only I weren't married. 

[HisMajestyBOB]

An elected figurehead President seems pretty pointless to me. Figurehead monarchs at least have significant symbolism and provide a form of continuance and stability, as they rule for life and represent a dynasty that has ruled for generations. A figurehead President has none of that, and is not notable in any way. If Germany disbanded the office of the President, no one would notice.

They can still go to pointless parties and banquets, thus reducing the workload of the Chancellor, enabling her to concentrate more on the actual work.

But, apart from that, I agree with your point.

That's what VPs and deputies are for.

[The Larch]

In the past they'd occasionally delay (even refuse? don't recall) signing off if they thought the law was against the constitution.

Not anymore? IMO that's the biggest weapon in a President's arsenal inside parlamentary democracies. Napolitano used it a lot against Berlusconi to fend off his most blatant power grubbing moves, and Vaclav Klaus and the Kaczinski twin used it to delay signing EU treaties they didn't agree with, IIRC.

[Zanza]

In the past they'd occasionally delay (even refuse? don't recall) signing off if they thought the law was against the constitution.

Not anymore? IMO that's the biggest weapon in a President's arsenal inside parlamentary democracies. Napolitano used it a lot against Berlusconi to fend off his most blatant power grubbing moves, and Vaclav Klaus and the Kaczinski twin used it to delay signing EU treaties they didn't agree with, IIRC.

There was a total of eight cases since 1949 with the last one in 2006, so it is very unusual and there has to be a serious formal or material reservation for presidents not to sign legislation. There were another nine cases when they signed but added a comment that they seriously doubt the constitutionality of legislation.

[The Larch]

In the past they'd occasionally delay (even refuse? don't recall) signing off if they thought the law was against the constitution.

Not anymore? IMO that's the biggest weapon in a President's arsenal inside parlamentary democracies. Napolitano used it a lot against Berlusconi to fend off his most blatant power grubbing moves, and Vaclav Klaus and the Kaczinski twin used it to delay signing EU treaties they didn't agree with, IIRC.

There was a total of eight cases since 1949 with the last one in 2006, so it is very unusual and there has to be a serious formal or material reservation for presidents not to sign legislation. There were another nine cases when they signed but added a comment that they seriously doubt the constitutionality of legislation.

Well, that either means that German presidents are quite docile to the government or that German governments generally do lawmaking well enough that they don't need much correcting.

[Zanza]

They need a lot of correcting, but that's the role of the Constitutional Court. That court can rule both on conflicts between other state organs (e.g. between parliament and government or between states and federation) and on constitutional complaints filed by individuals. That means that a lot of laws will be checked by the Constitutional Court and they often declare stuff void and demand that the legislators find a new solution within certain constraints.