After weeks of uncertainty, the clouds have parted. The German Constitutional Court gave the green light on Thursday for general elections, removing the last barrier preventing the electorate going to the polls in three weeks time. Only a single dissenting voice opposed the verdict, which was passed seven-to-one.

The judges said that their decision would restore the ability of the German government to legislate, thereby allowing the country to move forward. In presenting their decision, they admitted they had been under enormous pressure to permit fresh elections, but that their decision was still legally sound.

Chancellor Gerhard Schröder boisterously welcomed the decision, which he took as an endorsement of his determination to dissolve parliament and bring the elections forward.

"It is now clear that voters will be electing a new parliament on Sept. 18," he said. "This has been my prime intention, because I'm seeking a new mandate for my reform policy -- a policy which will make Germany strong again without threatening social cohesion."

Schröder's rival, opposition leader Angela Merkel, was equally relieved at the decision, which in all likelihood will pave the way for her to become Germany's next chancellor.

But not everyone was happy. The two appellants, Werner Schulz (Green Party) and Jelena Hoffmann (Social Democrats) were clearly disappointed. They originally brought the case because they claimed Chancellor Schröder manipulated parliament by deliberately losing a confidence vote in order to try and secure a mandate for his reform program.

Though Schröder's Social Democratic Party had lost a series of state elections leading up to its spectacular defeat in North-Rhine Westphalia in May, Schulz and Hoffmann claimed the chancellor still had a majority in parliament and therefore had no right to call for a dissolution. They also complained that President Horst Köhler was wrong to give his seal of approval for new elections.

Afterwards, Schulz, deputy leader of the Green Party, was indignant. "This is not my personal defeat," he said. "It's a defeat for parliamentary democracy in Germany. What's been strengthened by this ruling is the role of the chancellor in the system. So in the future every time a chancellor suspects, assumes or even thinks to assume that he has no majority anymore, he is allowed to send home the entire parliament."

Though the German papers are happy the elections are going ahead (if nothing else, they will have plenty to write about in the coming weeks), there is also a section of the press which sides with Schulz today.

Here on SPIEGEL ONLINE, auf deutsch, Claus Christian Malzahn is convinced that the court's verdict will fundamentally alter the German political landscape. And that isn't good news. "Karlsruhe strengthened the political role of the chancellor so much (Thursday), that future heads of government will have the license to use a perceived feeling of mistrust -- as the most important political measure in the Republic." Future chancellors will be able to call new elections whenever they feel it politically opportune, or whenever they meet opposition within their own party. The threat of new elections could then be used to discipline opposition voices, Malzahn writes.

Fundamentally, the judges abdicated their responsibility to uphold the law, our commentator believes. "Today, the Karlsruhe judges ducked the justified doubts of parliamentarians Werner Shulz and Jelena Hoffmann and said: 'Sorry, not our problem.' So, whose is it then?"

Sueddeutsche Zeitung can normally be relied upon to call a spade a spade -- and on Friday the paper doesn't disappoint. Its extensive commentary echoes Malzahn's concerns. "Welcome to the chancellor democracy," the paper lampoons, sardonically heralding the arrival of an intrinsically altered balance of political power in Germany. "Since yesterday's verdict the chancellor's position within the constitutional framework has been strengthened, and that of members of parliament and parliament as a whole has been weakened." The decision invests far too much power in the person of the chancellor, who now has legal precedent to brow-beat his or her own party, and dissolve the parliament when things don't go as planned. "In the future, the chancellor will be able to decide whether parliament should be dissolved prematurely or not. In future, a chancellor can threaten his critics in his party, and in the coalition, with a dissolution of parliament." Getting right to the point and hitting the nail squarely on its head, the commentator writes: "The justification for the court's verdict is pretty lousy."

"Yes, Chancellor!" reads Berliner Zeitung's headline, facetiously implying that the court has kowtowed to the chancellor. "Democracy celebrated a victory yesterday," the paper writes, "But not the democracy in which Germany's citizens erroneously believed they have been living for the past 50 years, not parliamentary democracy, but the democracy of the strong boss, the chancellor democracy." The court has set a terrible precedent and has placed a stick firmly in the hand of the chancellor, with which he can beat parliamentarians, the commentator essentially believes. "Schröder may be a lame duck, but thanks to this verdict his successors will be more powerful than all chancellors since 1949."

But before you get the feeling that the press are about to avow the overthrow of Germany's highest court, Die Tagezeitung tries to put a damper on the general hysteria. "So, Germany will go to the polls. But this doesn't mean that Germany is on the way to a "chancellor democracy." We shouldn't exaggerate the significance of the court's decision," the front-page commentary reasons. Apart from anything else, Germany's chancellor is already pretty powerful, and this decision won't change much.

"It was clear ever since 1983 (when Helmut Kohl called a confidence vote) that a chancellor could bring about new elections by staging a vote of confidence. There's no reason to believe this tactic will be used every three years from now on."