With the criterion developed by the Senate majority to distinguish between authorised and unauthorised enquiries, the Senate majority contradicts recognised constitutional principles for voting in the Bundesrat . In the view of the Senate majority, there is no right to enquire “if a uniform Land will recognisably does not exist and it cannot be expected in view of the overall circumstances for such a will to yet come into being during the ballot”. Hence, the right to enquire is made dependent on case-related perceptions and prognoses which relate to the political positions of individual Bundesrat Members and the formation of a uniform intention within a Land against the background of the Bundesrat ballot. Such case-specific internal Land backgrounds are however irrelevant under federal constitutional law, as the applicants have rightly stated in their written application in agreement with the very prevalent view in the teaching on public law. Hence, it is not a matter of whether the vote cast in the Bundesrat has at all been preceded by the formation of an intention within the government at Land level, whether Bundesrat Members have kept in their vote casting to internally issued instructions within the Land , and whether their voting conduct emerges from their stance on the subject of the ballot or from other political considerations (see instead of many Herzog, in: Handbuch des Staatsrechts , vol. II, 1987, § 46 , marginal no. 33; Korioth, in: v. Mangoldt/Klein/Starck, GG , vol. II, 4th ed. 2000, Art. 51, marginal nos. 21, 23; Krebs, in: v. Münch/Kunig, GG , vol. II, 4th/5th ed. 2001, Art. 51 marginal no. 14, with further references). Also for the question of whether the President of the Bundesrat in the event of non-uniform voting is entitled to enquire, it can hence not be a matter of case-related interpretations and expectations which relate to the intention-forming processes against the background of the respective voting conduct.