+(,121/,1( Citation: 1997 Utah L. Rev. 963 1997 Content downloaded/printed from HeinOnline (http://heinonline.org) Thu Oct 30 12:00:06 2014 -- Your use of this HeinOnline PDF indicates your acceptance of HeinOnline's Terms and Conditions of the license agreement available at http://heinonline.org/HOL/License -- The search text of this PDF is generated from uncorrected OCR text. -- To obtain permission to use this article beyond the scope of your HeinOnline license, please use: https://www.copyright.com/ccc/basicSearch.do? &operation=go&searchType=0 &lastSearch=simple&all=on&titleOrStdNo=0042-1448 Human Dignity, Privacy, and Personality in German and American Constitutional Law- Edward J. Eberle- TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. INTRODUCTION ................................................ 964 II. THE GERMAN CONSTITUTIONAL ORDER AND ITS PROTECTION OF HUMAN DIGNITY AND PERSONALITY ............................... 967 A. The German ConstitutionalO rder ............................ 967 B. Human Dignity in Germany ................................. 971 C. Human Personhooda nd the Polity ........................... 973 D. The ConcreteM eaning of Human Dignity ...................... 975 IMI. INTRODUCTION TO GERMAN PERSONALITY RIGHTS ................... 979 IV. FREEDOM OF ACTION: THE OUTER WORLD .......................... 981 A. Elfes and the GeneralR ight of Personality ..................... 981 B. Falconry Licensing Case .................................... 989 C. American Law ............................................ 990 V. INNER FREEDOM IN GERMAN LAW: THE PERSONAL SPHRE ............. 992 A. Establishmento f Interiority in German Law .................... 993 1. M icrocensus .......................................... 993 2. Criminal Diary Case .................................... 996 B. Informational Self-Determination ........................... 1000 1. Census Act Case ...................................... 1000 2. Confidentiality ....................................... 1007 3. ReputationalI nterest .................................. 1009 (a) Drunkard Case .................................... 1009 (b) M ephisto ........................................ 1011 C. Right to Honor and Rightful Portrayalo f Self .................. 1014 1. Soraya: Right to ControlA gainstA ttribution of False Statements ........................................... 1016 2. Lebach: Right to PersonalH onor and Control Over Presentationo f One's Self in Society ...................... 1019 "© 1998, Edward J. Eberle. All rights reserved. -Professor of Law, Roger Williams University School of Law (B.A. Columbia 1978, ID. Northwestern 1982). The author would like to thank Dean Jay Conison of Oklahoma City and Professor Bodo Pieroth of the University of Mnster, Germany, for their valuable comments on earlier drafts of this Article. He would also like to thank Theresa Kruczek who helped prepare this Article, and Eric Schweibenz, for his valuable research assistance. All translations are the author's unless otherwise noted. 963 964 UTAH LAW REVIEW [1997: 963 3. B611: Right to PersonalH onor and One's Own Words: Right Not to be Misquoted ........................ 1023 VI. IDENTITY, SELF-DETERMINATION, AND AUTONOMY ................. 1024 A. Right to Know One's Heritage .............................. 1025 1. Right to Heritage I ..................................... 1026 2. Right to Heritage I .................................... 1027 B. Sex, Sexuality, and Identity ................................. 1030 1. Transsexual Case ..................................... 1031 2. Transsexual Equal Protection ............................ 1031 3. American Law ........................................ 1032 C. Identity: Right to One's Own Name .......................... 1033 D. American Law ........................................... 1033 VII. ABORTION ..................................................... 1034 A. The Different Premises of German and American Abortion Law... 1035 1. Germany ............................................ 1035 2. America ............................................. 1037 B. The Abortion Decisions ................................... 1039 1. Germany ............................................ 1039 (a) Abortion I ........................................ 1039 (b) Abortion II ....................................... 1041 2. America ............................................. 1043 3. Convergence and Divergence in Abortion Law ............. 1045 VIII. COMPARATIVE OBSERVATIONS ................................... 1048 I. INTRODUCTION The quest for human dignity in modern society is a noble but elusive goal. Difficult to define,' difficult to realize, personally or socially, dignity nevertheless remains a defining trait of human character, and a preeminent ideal of western society. From the perspective of an individual, dignity might be thought of as the ability to pursue one's rights, claims, or interests in daily life so that one can fully realize talents, ambitions, or abilities as one would like. That is one path to satisfaction, social recognition, and stature-certainly attributes of dignity. This might be thought of as 'In western thought, the most definitive elaboration of the concept of human dignity is in the work of Immanuel Kant, especially his seminal FOUNDATIONS OF THE METAPHYSICS OF MORALS 39 (L.W. Beck trans., 2d ed. 1959) ("Act so that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in that of another, always as an end and never as a means only."). Recently, there has been a renaissance in the influence of Kantian thought as a counterweight to utilitarianism. This is most pronounced in the work of John Rawls. See, e.g., JOHN RAWLS, A THEORY OF JUSTICE (1971); John Rawls, Political Liberalism (1993). There are other conceptions of dignity too. Consider, for example, the work of RONALD DWORKIN, TAKINGRIGHr SEIOUSLY (1977) (developing theory of human rights as part of dignity) and LAW'S EMPIRE (1986) (examining how judges determine legal rights); or ROBERT NOZICK, ANARCHY, STATE AND TOPIA (1974) (arguing from natural law tradition of John Locke). No. 4] GERMAN CONSTITUTION 965 self-realization, although that is not the only conception of dignity. What matters here is that each person should be free to develop his own personality to the fullest, subject 2 only to restrictions arising from others' pursuit of the same. Of course, there must be some limit to individual freedom if society is to function in a reasonably orderly manner. Thus, from the standpoint of society, individual aspiration must be measured against the demand for order, peace, and social harmony. This balance between the aspiration of individual freedom and the demands of 3 organized society has been a central quest of modern constitutional law. Today this balance is harder than ever to achieve. Social demands have escalated, placing elevated pressures on the integrity of human personhood. The rise of the administrative state, for example, has led to omnipresent government and its 4 potential to suffocate personal freedom. Technology now develops so rapidly and pervasively that it risks overwhelming individuality. For example, computers can gather, store, and transmit information so capably that they can access, and even 5 mimic, human functions Gene technology, a rtificial insemination, and the ability to prolong and, indeed, end life pose troubling existential questions. How are we coping in this world, both in isolation and in comparison to others? This Article takes up these themes by exploring the concept of human dignity as reflected in the legal order of two comparable modem western societies: Germany and America. Germany and America are good choices for this comparison because both share similar European intellectual and cultural influences; both are highly developed, 2 Iti s fundamentally a Kantian thought that all moral agents should develop their talents to the maximum extent compatible with the freedom of others. Note, for example, Kants influence in RAWLS, A THEORY OFJUsrICE, supra note 1, at 60: "[Elach person is to have an equal right to the most extensive basic liberty compatible with a similar liberty for others." Anthony Sampson similarly voiced these thoughts: "'What matters... is that each man should be free to develop his own personality to the full; and the only duties which should restrict this freedom are those which are necessary to enable everyone else to do the sam .' ANTHONY SAMPSON, THE CHANGINGANATOMY OF BRITAIN 160 (1982) (quoting Lord Tom Denning, Master of the Rolls). For Kant, the concepts of freedom, development of moral personality, reverence of the moral law, and treating people as the final end are interlinked. 3 See, e.g., Poe v. UlIman, 367 U.S. 497, 542 (1961) (Harlan, J., dissenting) ("Due process has not been reduced to any formula; its content cannot be determined by reference to any code. The best that can be said is that through the course of this Court's decisions it has represented the balance which our Nation, built upon postulates of respect for the liberty of the individual, has struck between that liberty and the demands of organized society."). 'Whilethe administrative state in America can be traced to 1887-with the institution of the Interstate Commerce Commission, the first significant administrative agency-the predominant rise of the administrative state occurred during the era of the New Deal and continues today. In Europe, the roots of the administrative state lie in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. In Germany, the modem administrative state arose from Frederick the Great, who thought of himself as "the first servant of the state." Edward L Ebefle, Comparative PublicL aw: A Time That HasA rrived, in FRSTSClRIrs F OR BERNHARD GRossFI.D 7, 7 n.13 (Werner Ebke ed., forthcoming 1998). In France, Napoleon formed the administrative state through, among other things, a professional civil service. See id. 5 Se4 eg., Paul Schwartz, The Computeri n German and American ConstitutionalL aw: Towrds an American Right of InformationalS elf-Determination, 37 AM. J. COMP. L. 675, 676-77 (1989) (detailing extensive gathering and use of personal information by computers). Consider also the developments in artificial intelligence, such as IBM's recent construction of a computer, Deep Blue, that can capably challenge the world champion in a game of chess. See Bruce Weber, A Mean Chess-Playing ComputerT ears at the Meaningo f Thought, N.Y. TIMES, Feb. 19, 1996, at Al. Indeed, Deep Blue can win. See Drew McDermott, Yes, Computers Can Think, N.Y. TIMES, May 14, 1997, at A21. 966 UTAH LAW REVIEW [1997: 963 advanced industrial societies coping with change and technological revolution; and both value individual freedom in the context of a stable society. Human dignity is, of course, an elusive concept. For our purposes, we will concentrate on the content given the term by the constitutional law of both countries. In particular, we will explore how persons are free to develop their own personalities. One might choose, for example, to be let alone as master of his realm. Or, one might engage vigorously in the affairs of the day. In Germany, these matters are covered in the right to the free unfolding of personality. In America, this falls under the rubric of privacy rights, including the zone of personal autonomy that emanates therefrom. It makes sense to focus on the constitutional law of these countries because recording in a constitution a culture's highest values is a defining attribute of western society. Certainly this is the case with America and Germany. In Germany, the Basic Law, as interpreted by the Constitutional Court, guides and organizes society. In America, the Supreme Court has long secured the role of declaring out of the fabric of the Constitution certain fundamental values for the social order. By exploring this concept of human dignity in each constitutional order, insight can be derived as to the quality of the human condition, the reach of individual freedom, and the make up of the social order. The particular traits, activities, or essences valued by each country reveal something important about human personality as it relates to society. Likewise, the limitations on freedom articulated in German and American law are instructive of the social structure each country seeks to create. In short, the balance struck between individual freedom and the social order colors the legal culture. It makes particular sense to focus on these concepts from a cross-cultural perspective. First, it is important to realize that there are other visions of humanity beyond our own visage that may be ennobling, enriching, or both. Second, it is worthwhile to explore the similarities and differences in constitutional vision and doctrine-both in themselves and as a basis for assessing the transplantation of legal norms. Third, this comparison may yield a set of higher principles of constitutional order or a sounder public law philosophy. Fourth, the foreign legal regime may serve as an alternative standard by which to measure the work of the native court. Fifth, in an increasingly interdependent world, realization of mutual cultural influences may 6 prove beneficial. Sixth, through study of other cultures, we learn, by comparison, 7 something important about ourselves. To accomplish these goals, some grounding in German constitutional law-parti- cularly its protection of human dignity-is first necessary so that we can see how German law contrasts with American. This is the subject of Part UI. Part III provides an overview of human dignity as developed in German personality and American privacy rights. There are two components to German personality law. Freedom of OThese points are noted in Edward J. Eberle, Public Discourse in Contemporary Germany, 47 CASE W. RES. L. REV. 797, 804 (1997) [hereinafter Eberle, Public Discourse]. 7 This may be the main mission of comparative law: "For only by making comparisons can we distinguish ourselves from others and discover who we are, in order to become all that we are meant to be." THOMAS MANN, JOSEPH INE GYPT (1938), translatedi n Dedication,D AVID P. CURRIE, THE CONSTITMrrON OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY (1994). No. 4] GERMAN CONSTITUTION 967 action, elaborated on in Part IV, is outward in focus, including protection of activities like freedom to travel, or to pursue a sport or occupation. German law also guarantees a personal sphere that is inward in orientation. As discussed in Part V, this protection of the personal sphere entails a number of strands, such as privacy, informational self- determination, and control over one's portrayal in society. Parts IV and V are presented against the backdrop of American law in order to discover points of divergence and convergence in the two legal cultures. Part VI explores how both countries approach constitutional issues central to identity, self-determination, and autonomy. This area provides the greatest overlap between German and American law. German law has evolved to protect a search for biological parenthood, sexual identity, and rights to one's name, among other matters. In American law, self-determination has encompassed control over procreation, conception, marriage, and child rearing, to name a few. Part VII discusses the recent convergence in German and American abortion law in the context of these themes. All of this leads to a more comprehensive assessment in Part VIE of the countries' contrasting views of human dignity and the comparative strength of their constitutional visions. II. THE GERMAN CONSTITUTIONAL ORDER AND ITS PROTECTION oF HUMA DiGNITY AND PERsoNALI A The German ConstitutionalO rder The adoption of the Basic Law in 1949, following the debacle of World War II, signaled a new constitutional order in Germany. Seeking distance from the horrors of Naziism, the Basic Law made a sharp break from this immediate past, instead drawing deeply upon German tradition to found the legal order on moral and rational idealism, particularly that of Kant.' Thus, the Basic Law is a value-oriented constitution that obligates the state to realize a set of objectively ordered principles, rooted in justice and equality, that are designed to restore the centrality of humanity to the social order, and thereby secure a stable democratic society on this basis. These values are not to 9 be sacrificed for the exigencies of the day, as had been the case in Nazi Germany. The Rechtsstaat principle, for example, obligates society to adhere to a rule of law, requiring that legal measures have a legal basis and discernible content, provide fair notice, and be necessary and proportional to the ends they seek to accomplish 0 (Proportionality Principle)." The principle of the Social State (Sozialstaatsprinzip) $See INcO VON MUENCH, GRUNDESEIHz, KOMMENTAR, Vol. 1, 72-73 (2d ed. 1981); DONALD P. KOMMERS, THE CONSrrruIONAL JURISPRUDENCE OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY 47 (1989) [haeinafter CONSrIXrMONAL JURISPRUDBNCE]; Peter Badura, Generalpraventionu nd Warde des Menschen, 19 JURISTENZEITUNG 337, 339-40 (1964). 9 See George P. Fletcher, Human Dignity as a Constitutional Value, 22 U.W. ONT. L. .RBv. 171, 178-79 (1984). 0 l The concept of the Rechtsstaat has deep roots in German constitutional theory. Kant is generally considered the formulator of the concept. Its intellectual roots are complex, bound with the idea of a state governed by the rule of law and the idea that state power should be applied rationally, consistent with this autonomous system of law. Despite its similarity with the English concept of the rule of law, the two are not the same. For elaboration of the notion of Rechtsstaat in German legal history, see William Ewald, 968 UTAH LAW REVIEW [1997: 963 obligates the state to take necessary social welfare measures so that all citizens will have a dignified existence." The concept of a "militant democracy" (streitbare Demokratie) obligates the state to resist any threats to the basic democratic order, 2 thereby assuring that democracy flourishes. Crucial also to the German social order is commitment to human rights. Many fundamental values are enumerated in the Basic Law's catalogue of rights, including protections of free conscience, faith and creed, free expression, equality, and occupational freedom. The Basic Law is far more specific and comprehensive in its listing of basic freedoms, enumerating at least twenty specific individual liberties, as compared to the relatively sparse enumeration of liberties in the American Constitu- 3 tion. There are differences in the countries' conceptions of basic rights. Fundamental to the German constitutional scheme is the principle of objective and subjective rights, or positive and negative liberties. The objective or positive dimension of rights obligates the government to create the proper conditions so that rights might be 14 realized. This bestows duties on the state, calling for state activism. For example, the concept of human dignity protected in Article 1 obligates the state to provide a basic minimal existence for citizens.'" This objective dimension to basic rights is tied to the value-ordered nature of the German constitutional scheme, obligating the government to realize in society the set of objective values embodied in the Basic Law. "This value-system, which centers upon human dignity and the free unfolding of the human personality within the social community, must be looked upon as a fundamental 6 constitutional decision affecting all areas of law, public and private."' By interpreting basic rights as establishing an "objective" ordering of values, centered around human dignity, the Constitutional Court transformed those values into ComparativeJ urisprudence( I): What Was It Like to Try a Rat?, 143 U. PA. L. REv. 1889,2046-55 (1995). See also KOMMERS, CONSTITUrIONAL JURISPRUDENCE, supra note 8, at 42-43. Today the notion of the Rechtsstaat is anchored in Article 20(3), which provides: "Legislation shall be subject to the constitutional order-, the executive and thejudiciary shall be bound by law and justice." Art. 20(3) Grundgesetz [hereinafter GG]; see also infra note 135 and accompanying text. "See Art. 20(l) GG. For elaboration of the concept of the Social State, see CONSTrF1rI7ONAL JURISPRUDENCE , supran ote 8, at 41-42. For the intellectual origins of the Social State, see Ewald, supra note 10, at 2055-61. 'See, e.g., liass Case, 30 Entscheidungen des Bundesverfassungsgerichts [hereinafter BVerfGE] 1, 19-20 (1970), translated in CONSTIrUTIONAL JURISPRUDENCE, supra note 8, at 230 ("Constitutional provisions must not be interpreted in isolation but rather in a manner consistent with the Basic Law's fundamental principles and its system of values .... In the context of this case it is especially significant that the Constitution ... has decided in favor of [a] 'militant democracy' that does not submit to abuse of basic rights or an attack on the liberal order of the state. Enemies of the Constitution must not be allowed to endanger, impair, or destroy the existence of the state while claiming protection of rights granted by the Basic Law."). 3 ' These differences should be expected, as the German charter was drafted in 1949 and the American Bill of Rights was drafted in 1791. " The concept of an 'objective' ordering of values... [is] a central concept in German constitutional doctrine' Peter E. Quint, Free Speech and Private Law in German ConstitutionalT heory, 48 MD. L. REV. 247,261 (1989). lsThis provides the foundation for the social welfare principle, anchored in Article 20(1), that distinguishes Germany. 6 ' Lath, 7 BVerfGE 198, 205 (1958). No. 4] GERMAN CONSTITUTION 969 principles so important that they must exist "objectivel'--as an independent force, separate from their specific manifestation in a concrete legal relationship. So conceived, objective rights form part of the legal order, the ordre public, thereby 7 taking their place among the governing principles of German society. In this way, the Basic Law acts as a blueprint for society, setting forth the values to be realized, requiring a close fit between its text and society. By contrast, there is no such objective aspect to the American Constitution. The American Constitution simply provides the outline for government, concentrating on limiting official power. Our Constitution lacks any positive element that requires 8 affirmative government action to enforce our rights. The second aspect of German basic rights is their subjective or negative dimension. This means that rights play a defensive role, delimiting a sphere of personal liberty beyond governmental control. In German law, this concept of rights is referred to as "subjective," denoting a set of rights individuals may exercise. The essential character of this subjective dimension corresponds to the American concept of fundamental constitutional rights. In contrast to the American Constitution, the German Basic Law also sets forth certain duties citizens or government must perform. For example, Article 6(2) provides that "the care and upbringing of children shall be a natural right of and a duty primarily incumbent on the parents. The state shall watch over their endeavors in this 9 respect."' Moreover, the objective value-order, as worked out by the Court, calibrates the relationships between rights, and among rights and duties. Thus, German citizens have both claims to subjective rights, which they may exercise, and objective rights, which they can call on government to perform, but must also assume duties corollary to such rights. We can thus see that the contrast between the text and nature of the two constitutions is striking. The German Basic Law is value-oriented and sets forth both rights and duties, whereas the United States Constitution attempts to be value-neutral pursuant to a scheme of negative liberties, specifically enumerating rights government may not infringe, but not stating comparable duties citizens must assume or values government must realize. Constitutional interpretative techniques also differ in Germany and America. Under American canon, one must consult, in order of importance, constitutional text 0 See Eberle, PublicD iscourse, supra note 6, at 811. They might even be viewed as "permanent ends of the state," not changeable even by constitutional amendment. Quint, supra note 14, at 261 (noting Art. 79(3) GG). "Themost that might be said is that, under certain circumstances, American government cannot totally deny a right or a benefit. Usually, such cases are decided under the Equal Protection Clause. See, e.g., Plyer v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 230 (1982) (ruling that state may not deny free public education to illegal aliens); Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618, 627, 629-31 (1969) (holding that conditioning receipt of welfare benefits on one-year residency requirement violates right to travel and Equal Protection Clause). " Art. 6(2) GG. In actuality, duties are only sparingly spelled out in the Basic Law, in contrast to the 1918 Weimar Constitution, which elaborated a set of duties. Thus, in contemporary Germany, "duties" arise more from internalization of cultural norms (of how one ought to exercise rights) than from textual enumeration. See Eberle, Public Discourse, supra note 6, at 801 n.6. For elaboration of the Basic Law's concept of duties and how they mirror basic rights, see BODO PIEROTH & BERNHARD SCHLINK, GRUND- RECTE STAATSRECIT I155-56 (10th ed. 1994). 970 UTAH LAW REVIEW [1997: 963 (including structure and purpose), precedent, Framers' intent, and then, perhaps, social, economic, or philosophic perspectives prior to reaching a plausible result. By contrast, German law places a premium on the text of the Basic Law and its applicability to social and economic conditions. Beyond textual and structural exegesis, German interpreters also employ historical and teleologicalanalysis, before 20 integrating and harmonizing the whole (praktische Konkordanz). Both Courts thus employ a variety of reasoning techniques, including arguments based on text, 21 structure, history and natural law. Functionally, German case law operates like American decisions, setting forth fundamental principles that bind other courts and people in society.' The most pronounced difference between the two modes of interpretation relates to the role of Framers' intent. In Germany, the Constitutional Court treats Framers' intent and history as auxiliary sources of interpretation. While the Court is free to consult them, they generally lend support to a result reached through other interpreta- tive methods, such as the textual, structural, or teleological analysis noted above. Framers' intent is not an independent source of authority.' Instead, the Court mainly interprets constitutional text in relationship to the conditions of modern society. This a2Under German canon, textual analysis consists of analyzing the meaning of words or sentences. This is usually combined with a structural or systematic analysis, where one attempts to clarify the meaning of a word or sentence by comparing it to related language in the legal text. The interpreter strives for a unity of the legal document interpreted. In historical analysis, the interpreter tries to divine the intent of the Framers of the legal text. In teleological analysis, the interpreter glosses over Framers' intent and, instead, searches for the purpose or goal behind the language. Such purposes are generally viewed from a contemporary perspective. These four schools of interpretation constitute the classic catalogue of statutory interpretation in Germany, and the core of constitutional interpretation as well. With the exception of teleological interpretation, these classic methods of interpretation were established in Germany by Friedrich Carl von Savigny in his classic eight volume treatise on Roman law, SYSTEM DES HEUTIGEN ROMISCHBN RBCHTS (SYSTEM OF MODERN ROMAN LAW) (Scientia Verlag 1981) (1840-1851). See Winfried Brugger, Legal Interpretation,S chools ofJ urisprudence,a ndA nthropology: Some Remarksf rom a German Pointo f View, 42 AM. 3 COMP. L 395,396-98 (1994); see also CONSTITUrIONAL JURISPRUDENCE, supra note 8, at 48-49. One can thus see that there is some overlap between American and German methods of textual interpretation. A difference between German statutory and constitutional interpretation is that, in constitutional interpretation, after employing a combination of the above four techniques, the constitutional interpreter then tries to bring some unity to the overall interpretation. If norms are in conflict with one another, the interpreter tries to reconcile them by interpreting their essences to the maximum extent possible, and then harmonizing the difference. This is the technique of concordance or harmonization (praktischeK onkordanz). It is easier in theory than in practice. Consider, for example, the Constitutional Court's use of the technique in the context of the clashes between expression and privacy interests, in the Lebach, 35 BVerfGE 202 (1973), and Soraya,3 4 BVerfGE 269 (1973), cases, discussed infra notes 337-40, 373-80 and accompanying text, and abortion, discussed infra notes 504-07 and accompanying text. The interpreter also tries to integrate the interpretation to achieve interparty and social cohesion. See Brugger, supra, at 398-99. m See CONSTITUTIONAL JURISPRUDENCE, supran ote 8, at 48-49. 2In Germany, there is no formal stare decisis system as there is in America. This follows from the civil law premise that judicial decisions serve only as a gloss on the open development of the law, which is to be found in the rules and principles of the governing text. See id. at 48. However, in practice, German courts strive to adhere to precedent, as do American courts. Moreover, Constitutional Court decisions represent binding interpretations of the Basic Law. 3 - See Brugger, supra note 20, at 400; CONSTITUTIONAL JURISPRUDENCE, supra note 8, at 49. Note, for example, these words of the Constitutional Court: "[Tihe original history ofa particular provision of the BasicLawhas no decisive importance" in constitutional interpretation. Homosexuality Case, 6 BVerfGE 389, 431 (1957), translatedi n CONSTrrrIONAL JURISPRUDENCE, supran ote 8, at 49. No. 4] GERMAN CONSTITUTION 971 is perhaps most pronounced in relation to the Article 1 concept of human dignity, where the Court has stated: "[Any decision defining human dignity in concrete terms must be based on our present understanding of it and not on any claim to a conception of timeless validity." This is a far cry from American law, where text, structure, history, and Framers' intent are thought to lend predictability and stability to the law. Some even forcefully argue that these methods provide an additional guard against judicial activism. Certainly the conservative reaction to the Warren Court has sought limitation of judicial review through a search for originalism.1 Moreover, in the area of une- 6 numerated rights, the Supreme Court has sought to anchor its decisions in timeless concepts, like justice or natural law, to avoid the appearance of judicial bias or result- 2 7 orientation These differences show, almost by definition, that the Constitutional Court tends to be a more activist body than the Supreme Court. They also point out, in a sense, that the Constitutional Court is forward-looking, whereas the Supreme 2 Court is backward in focus. B. Human Dignity in Germany Human dignity is the central value of the Basic Law. This determination reflects the conscious intention to elevate modem Germany beyond the inhumanity of Naziism, signaling a new constitutional order. Article 1(1) therefore states that "the dignity of man shall be inviolable." The second paragraph of Article 1 reinforces the centrality of human rights to the concept of human dignity: "The German people therefore acknowledge inviolable and inalienable human rights as the basis of every 29 community, of peace and ofj ustice in the world" A core aspect of human dignity is the guarantee of human rights. Indeed, the specific enumeration of basic rights in the Basic Law are themselves tangible manifestations of human dignity. This catalogue of basic rights is systematically ordered, making up a central aspect of the objectively determined set of values that '-!fe! pnironment Case,4 5 BVerfGE 187, 229 (1977), translatedi n CRuRIB, supra note 7, at 315. ZSee e.g., ROBERTBORK, T &hMNIG oAMERICA 69-132 (1990) (examining influence ofjudges' and public's political and moral views upon judicial decisions); Robert Bork, Neutral Principlesa nd Some FirstA mendment Problems,4 7 IND. L.J. 1, 1-20 (1971) (arguing that effective theories and criteria should be established to guide judges in interpreting American Constitution). 2By unenumerated rights, I mean the range of fundamental rights beyond those explicitly set forth in the first eight amendments to the Constitution. In this Article, I use the term unenumerated rights synonymously with modern substantive due process or its subset, rights of privacy. 2 Se eg., Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 486 (1965) ('We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights:); Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942) ("We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil rights of man [marriage and procreation]:). 2sCompare, especially, Transsexual Case, 49 BVerfGE 286 (1978) (ruling that as matter of fundamental human dignity, person has right to live according to sex of choice), with Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186, 190-94 (1986) (ruling that history and traditions of country do not support recognizing constitutional right to engage in homosexual sodomy), discussed infra notes 468-74 and accompanying text. 2 0CoNSrmmONAL JURJSPRUDENCE, supran ote 8, at 305. The Basic Law's reliance on human dignity is attributable to Kant. The charter might even be envisioned as an attempt to infuse Kantian morality into the legal order. See Fletcher, supran ote 9, at 178. For elaboration of the Kantian roots of the Basic Law, particularly in Articles 1 and 2, see Ewald, supra note 10, at 2063. See also sources cited supra note 8.