aa) The constitutional requirements for a methodically objective determination of benefits guaranteed as a fundamental right do not affect the procedures of the legislature but their results (BVerfGE 132, 134 <162 and 163, para. 70>). The fundamental right to a guarantee of a dignified minimum existence derived from Art. 1 sec. 1 in conjunction with Art. 20 sec. 1 GG entails no specific procedural obligations for the legislature; what is important is whether the amount of benefits paid to secure existence can be justified objectively by means of realistic and plausible calculations. Arts. 76 et seq. of the Basic Law set out rules for the legislative procedure that, inter alia, ensure transparency in the legislature’s decisions; in doing so, parliamentary procedure, with its inherent function of publicity (cf. BVerfGE 119, 96 <128>), ensures that the necessary legislative decisions are made in public sittings (Art. 42 sec. 1 sentence 1 GG) and facilitates their discussion in the wider public sphere (cf. BVerfGE 70, 324 <355>; as distinct from the Federal Convention, as in BVerfG, judgment of the Second Senate of 10 June 2014 - 2 BvE 2/09 -, juris, para. 100). However, the Constitution does not stipulate what exactly has to be justified and calculated how and when in the legislative procedure, but leaves room for negotiations and for political compromise. Nor does the Basic Law oblige the legislature to make an optimal determination of the minimum level of existence by taking into account every conceivable factor; to do so is the task of politics (cf. BVerfGE 113, 167 <242>). Here, it is decisive that the requirements of the Basic Law to effectively ensure a dignified minimum existence are ultimately met. 77 bb) Nor does the Basic Law stipulate any particular method that might restrict the legislature’s leeway to design its approach. The legislature has the freedom to choose the method to determine needs and calculate benefits to secure a dignified minimum existence within the scope of what is suitable and adequate (cf. BVerfGE 125, 175 <225>). The legislature’s choice does however not alter the standards resulting from the fundamental right. This means that no method may be selected which ignores certain needs from the outset if such needs have already been otherwise recognised as necessary to secure a dignified existence (cf. BVerfGE 132, 134 <162 and 163, para. 71>). If different methods are used for certain groups, this must be objectively justifiable (cf. BVerfGE 125, 175 <225>). 78 cc) The outcome of an appropriate procedure to determine claims guaranteed as a fundamental right must be continually kept under review and updated (cf. BVerfGE 125, 175 <225>). 79 2. The legislature’s leeway in determining the minimum level of subsistence is mirrored by a merely restrained review by the Federal Constitutional Court. The Basic Law itself does not stipulate a quantified claim with a definite amount (cf. BVerfGE 125, 175 <225 and 226>; 132, 134 <165, para. 78>). This means that the extent of the claim, with regard to the kinds of need and the means required to cover them, cannot be directly derived from the Constitution (cf. BVerfGE 91, 93 <111 and>). It is not the task of the Federal Constitutional Court to decide the amount of a right to benefits for securing the minimum existence must be; nor is it its task to review whether 80 12/29