Constitutional principles, understood as a general term for state goals and state structure determinations, are often used as convenient battle slogans. Are they also justiciable norms? While the classical constitutional principles found in Articles 1, 20, and 20a of the Basic Law appear unproblematic, other types of principles become precarious. For example, can implicit principles be justified alongside explicit ones? What criteria determine whether the rule of law, subsidiarity, or responsibility—just to name a few principles inspired by the Basic Law—are considered norms of the Basic Law? Is the popular reference to a "comprehensive view" sufficient here? And conversely, how should constitutional principles be applied? Their mercurial nature as constitutional general clauses seems to preclude a comprehensible and legally secure specification from the outset.