Paulskirche constitution

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Reichsgesetzblatt with the Reich constitution

The constitution of the German Empire of March 28, 1849, also known as the Frankfurter Reichsconstitution (FRV) or Paulskirchenverfassung , was the constitution for a German federal state . It was drawn up by the Frankfurt National Assembly for the German Reich emerging during the revolution of 1848/1849 . According to the National Assembly, the Constitution, passed on March 27, came into force when it was promulgated. Twenty-eight German governments followed this view in the Note of Twenty-eight .

However, the largest German states did not recognize the constitution. Instead, they actively opposed the Constitution and the National Assembly. In their opinion, a German constitution had to be agreed with them ( constitutional agreement ). In addition, many conservative governments found the Frankfurt constitution too liberal. The power struggle between Prussia and Austria also played a role in the background : the southern German kingdoms in particular preferred a confederation of states including Austria .

The imperial constitution provided for a political system in the sense of the constitutional monarchy : a hereditary emperor, who was himself “inviolable”, appointed responsible imperial ministers. In addition, the emperor could postpone laws . The main legislative body, the Reichstag, had two chambers. Of these, the Volkshaus was to be elected according to universal suffrage ( Frankfurt Reich Election Law ), half of the members of the state house were to be appointed by the state governments and half by the state parliaments. The basic rights of the German people were enforceable by the citizens before a Reich court.

The FRV was the first all-German and democratic constitution in Germany. The Erfurt Union Constitution of 1849/50 was largely a copy, but it was more conservative and federalist. This should make it more acceptable for the medium-sized states. This constitution, too, was ultimately not adopted by the major states. In the years and decades that followed, the FRV inspired politicians and influenced state and all-German constitutions (see reception of the Frankfurt Reich constitution ). This applies above all to the FRV's catalog of fundamental rights.

Label and background

The National Assembly titled the corresponding document as the Constitution of the German Reich and used the term "Reichsverfassungs" (Reich Constitution) in it and elsewhere. The legal literature and the historical science write among other things "Reichsverfassungs von 1849" or "Frankfurter Reichsverfassungs" with the often used abbreviation FRV. Since the National Assembly held its meetings mainly in the Paulskirche in Frankfurt , the (non-contemporary) designation "Paulskirchenverfassungs" or "Constitution of the Paulskirche" has become commonplace.

Germany was reorganized as the German Confederation after Napoleon's reign in 1815 . It was a federation of states that was supposed to ensure security both internally and externally. The federal purpose was thus very limited; For example, it was not the task of the federal government to standardize legal relationships or to create a common economic area. Basis for the federal law was mainly the Federal Act of 1815 and the Vienna Final Act of 1820. Together they formed the actual Federal Constitution. Unanimity was required for major changes to the federal government.

The most important federal organ, the Bundestag , was a congress of envoys of the individual states, so there was no government, no parliament and no court and thus no separation of powers. The federal government did not develop in this direction either, because the largest members (above all Austria , Prussia and Bavaria ) had no interest in federal reform . For them, the federal government primarily served to suppress national , liberal and democratic aspirations.

occurrence

Early drafts 1847/1848

German Confederation 1815–1848 and again 1851–1866

In the decades after 1815, even the opposition thought less of a further development or reorganization of the German Confederation, but rather of the correct application of the Federal Act . This only changed at the end of 1847, for example with the opposition meetings in Offenburg (September 12th) and Heppenheim (October 10th). Their core demands can be found in a famous motion that Friedrich Daniel Bassermann in the Baden Second Chamber on 5/12. Noted February 1848. As a result, the Federal Constitution should be reformed so that, in addition to the Bundestag, there would be a national representation of the chambers of the individual states. On February 28, Heinrich von Gagern presented a plan for a provisional federal head, a national government and an elected national parliament in the Grand Ducal Hessian Second Chamber.

In February and March there were two parallel efforts to renew or replace the Federal Constitution:

  • The troubled Bundestag made several reform resolutions and set up a committee of seventeen. In April, the latter presented a relatively detailed draft constitution with the draft of seventeen . However, it was not possible to set up a federal government and possibly other new organs.
  • On March 5, 1848, Liberals and Democrats met in the Heidelberg Assembly . They chose seven participants who should prepare a so-called pre-parliament in Frankfurt. The pre-parliament in turn set up a committee of fifties , which was supposed to critically accompany the Bundestag until a national assembly was elected. These bodies and assemblies were in themselves private initiatives, but of great public importance.

The seventeenth draft envisaged a parliament with representation of the people and states and, for the first time, a hereditary emperor. Contemporary politicians strongly opposed the draft because it did not suit their own interests enough, but constitutional historians praised it for being concise, precise and making clear decisions on essential issues. One problem was that when a single person was chosen as head of the empire, the question immediately arose who this emperor should be.

Disagreement between liberals and democrats, but also resistance from the individual states, meant that the federal constitution essentially remained in place during this period. All the more hopes were directed towards the soon-to-be-elected National Assembly.

Pre-Parliament March / April 1848

Pre-parliament in the Paulskirche in Frankfurt, where later the National Assembly also met

Between March 31 and April 3, the pre-parliament met four times in plenary. It made sure that the Bundestag accepted the Prussian eastern provinces (Prussia and parts of Poznan) into the federal territory, but the majority refused to declare themselves permanent and thus already become the national representation. In addition, the pre-parliament expanded Welcker's demands for freedom and helped the term “ basic rights ” to a certain degree of generality. The pre-parliament was also important because politicians were already pre-sorted according to political directions.

Above all, the pre-parliament caused two Bundestag resolutions to elect a national assembly by the German people. According to this federal electoral law , the individual states should have members elected to a constituent national assembly that should draft a constitution for all of Germany. The draft would then be agreed with the individual states . This Frankfurt National Assembly finally met on May 18, 1848.

Constitutional deliberations in the National Assembly

Bavarian publication of a draft constitution, Stadtmuseum Speyer

The National Assembly met for the first time on May 18, 1848 and already formed the important constitutional committee with thirty members on May 24 . Among them were some of the leading figures in the National Assembly and previous draft constitution, such as Bassermann, Dahlmann and Welcker. Ninety percent had relevant scientific publications or other relevant experience. However, the South West Germans and the Liberals were overrepresented, so the committee only gave imprecise views of the entire National Assembly.

Georg Beseler was a prominent member of the constitutional committee

The committee decided to deal with the fundamental rights of the German people first . He was later accused of delaying the adoption of the entire constitution. That was one of the main reasons for the failure of the revolution. But the MPs considered the fundamental rights to be extremely important in order to give Germany a uniform legal basis and to bind the individual states to it. The future-oriented catalog of basic rights was passed as a Reich law on December 27, 1848 and then incorporated into the constitution.

In October the actual negotiations of the National Assembly on the constitution began. The question of Großdeutsch / Kleindeutsch turned out to be a considerable burden, which also enabled the great powers Austria and Prussia to delay tactics. It was not until March 1849, after Austria had confirmed its independence and unity through a new constitution, the October Constitution , that the decisive knots were severed by votes: Germany should have a hereditary emperor who only postpone the laws of the Reichstag (suspensive veto), but cannot completely prevent it (that would have been an absolute veto). The Volkshaus of the Reichstag was to be elected by a universal, equal suffrage. A German sovereign can only be connected to a country outside the Reich territory through personal union, not through real union (with uniform administration).

In the opinion of the National Assembly, it alone had the right to bring the constitution into force. The governments of the individual states were asked for their opinions in the final phase, but not for an actual and formal constitutional agreement . According to the Central Authority Act , the central authority should not be involved either. After a successful vote in the National Assembly on March 28, 1849, it was not the Reichsverweser and a minister who signed the constitution , but the President of the National Assembly and the deputies.

After the revolution was put down, the Bundestag endeavored to obtain the original version of the imperial constitution. Three copies of the constitution were printed, each of which was signed by a large number of MPs. One is missing, another is in Kassel , the Berlin copy contains most of the signatures (405). The member and estate administrator of the National Assembly Friedrich Siegmund Jucho had kept the Berlin original in private ownership and presented it to the President of the North German Reichstag , Eduard Simson, in March 1870 . Although the Reichstag is not the legal successor to the National Assembly, it is nevertheless the legal representative of the greater part of the German people.

content

German Empire

In the National Assembly (from March 18, 1848) and the central power (from June 28/29, 1848) one could see new, revolutionary organs, or new organs of the already existing German Confederation , which had been tacitly renamed the German Reich . In any case, the national assembly referred to itself in the imperial laws as the imperial assembly and in the central authority a imperial administrator appointed imperial minister . Article I of the Constitution expressly refers to the Confederation:

§ 1. The German Reich consists of the territory of the previous German Confederation.

For example, in Section II (Section 87), the constitution also names the Reich “ federal state ”, as the Central Power Act had already done. The situation in Schleswig will be clarified later (§ 1), and the door will be left open for the "German-Austrian states" (§ 87). Furthermore, the constitution naturally assumes the existence of German states (for example Section 86), sometimes it also says German states (Section 2) or individual states (Section 24).

With imperial power is sometimes meant the imperial level, i.e. the highest national level in the federal state structure. However, the expression can also refer more specifically to the executive at the level of the empire and thus ultimately to the emperor. Section II “The Reichsgewalt” defines the competencies of the Reich, with further competencies appearing in other sections. As a rule, administration and justice in Germany should remain a matter for the individual states, but the Reich reserved the right to expand its competencies ( competence-competence ). This laid down (§ 66, § 194) what was later known as the principle " Federal law breaks state law " and was anchored in Article 31 of the Basic Law as a "federal matter of course" for the federal state of the Basic Law . Despite the existence of the individual states, the empire could have developed more and more into a unitary state or a unitary federal state . The latter occurred in the Bismarck Empire and continued in the Federal Republic of Germany.

Foreign and military authority appear as the exclusive competence of the Reich. A single state was therefore no longer allowed to have its own ambassador abroad and had to accept requirements for its military, although the individual states were still responsible for the formation, training, accommodation of troops, etc. Only the empire had the right to wage war.

In the constitutional system of the German Confederation , the option was left open for the Confederation to deal with charitable matters; the individual states had prevented this from happening, however. The Central Power Act already spoke of the "security and welfare of the German federal state", and the Reich constitution provided for a large number of fields of activity for Reich legislation. They can be summarized with the legal, social and economic infrastructure : legal relationships of the waterways and railways, customs, post and telegraphy, health care etc. The Reich was allowed to introduce Reich taxes "in exceptional cases" (§ 51).

Political system

Constitutional diagram for the imperial constitution of 1849. The imperial ministers were appointed by the emperor; the participation of the Reichstag was at least not formally planned. Laws required the approval of both chambers of the Reichstag, i.e. the People's House and the House of States. The imperial government could not prevent laws through a suspensive veto, but it could postpone it.

The FRV provided for a Reich head with a Reich government (executive), a Reichstag (legislative) and a Reichsgericht (judiciary). In the classic sense of the separation of powers , powers should not simply be separated from one another, but should also be able to control one another, so the Reichstag was not entirely concerned with legislation. Reich laws could not only propose a house for the Reichstag, but also the Reich government; the imperial government was able to lodge a suspensive veto against imperial laws.

The head of the empire had the title of emperor (§ 70). After the imperial dignity was transferred to a ruling prince, it could be inherited, namely to the firstborn son (§ 69). The emperor was inviolable, the Reich ministers appointed by him were responsible . An act of the emperor only became valid when a Reich minister countersigned and thus assumed responsibility (§ 73, 74).

Furthermore, little is said about the composition of the government or its precise responsibilities, and in any case no parliamentary mode of government is expressly laid down. However, the Reich government opened up the possibility of doing this, for example by allowing Reich ministers to be members of the Volkshaus (unlike 1867–1918). Political developments in 1848/49 also went in this direction, when a number of deputies proved themselves to be suitable Reich Ministers and Undersecretaries of State . According to Ernst Rudolf Huber , there is much to suggest that after 1849 the imperial government would in fact have been parliamentarized.

The constitutional monarchy of the 19th century corresponded to a parliament with a two-chamber system . Only the left had called for a unicameral parliament in the National Assembly. According to the FRV, all members of the Reichstag should have a free mandate (Section 96), enjoy immunity (Section 117) and receive diets (Section 95), i.e. not be dependent on their own assets in order to be able to find time for parliamentary activity. The Reichstag should consist of two chambers (houses) and one member should only belong to one. A resolution by the Reichstag required the approval of both houses:

  • The Volkshaus represented the German people in their entirety, it was elected according to democratic (general and equal) male suffrage. The legislative period after the first Reichstag election was four years, then three years. The election was based on the Reich Election Act of April 12, 1849.
  • The house of states represented the individual states. The FRV assigned a certain number of state house members to each individual state, according to a list (§ 87), which was based essentially on the number of inhabitants. Half of the members were determined by the state government and the other half by the state parliament. The House of States was a member for six years, with half of the seats to be renewed from three to three years. A member of the House of States was not allowed to be a Reich Minister.

A Reichsgericht only exercised the jurisdiction of the Reich and was therefore not a general supreme instance above the regional courts. As the first and only instance, however, it served for constitutional and political questions. It decided on disputes between states or states and the Reich, between the Reich government, the state house and the people's house and between state organs. In addition to a few other points, the possibility of constitutional complaints is particularly important: A German could sue the Reichsgericht for his basic rights and other rights based on the FRV.

defense of Constitution

In section VII “The guarantee of the constitution” and elsewhere there are provisions that can be summarized in modern terms as protection of the constitution . The empire's task was also internal security if a country could not or would not do this itself in its own territory. The aim was to prevent the constitution from being broken or circumvented by overturning from above or below. This includes that the constitution could only be changed by a resolution of the Reichstag (with a two-thirds majority ) and the emperor. After eight days, the Reichstag vote had to be repeated.

Emperors, Reich ministers, civil servants, members of the army (the fleet was forgotten) and members of parliament had to take an oath on the Reich constitution. This also applied to anyone who had to take an oath on the state constitution in a country. For the emperor, who could not take office without an oath, it read (§ 190):

I swear to protect the Reich and the rights of the German people, to uphold the Reich constitution and to implement it conscientiously. So help me God.

The Reich interventions and executions were based on the corresponding measures of the German Confederation. If there was unrest in a country, the Reich could request Reich intervention; if necessary, the empire itself could become active. A Reich execution, on the other hand, was directed against a state government itself that violated the constitution or broke the Reich peace. In the case of a dependent Reich execution, the Reich Government followed a ruling by the Reich Court; in the case of an independent Reich execution, it may intervene immediately.

Financial constitution

In a federal state, it is not only necessary to generally regulate which level can pass laws on which topics, but also who collects the taxes. Later in the German Empire, the realm was essentially a "boarder" of the individual states: It received its income almost exclusively from their payments (matriculation contributions) and some of its own taxes.

The ship Germania , built in 1842 off Cologne. River tariffs would have become an important source of income for the empire.

The FRV, however, provided for a more mixed system. The realm, or more precisely the realm level, could have had different sources of income:

  • Matriculation fees: The Reich was allowed to demand unrestricted matriculation contributions from the individual states, i.e. as high as it wanted (Section 50).
  • Customs duties, collective indirect taxes, financial monopolies (Section 35, Paragraph 2): the Reich level decided for itself how much it wanted to allocate to the individual states, so it was an allocation system from this point of view. In principle, however, the tax revenue sovereignty was divided between the Reich and the states, so that it is more of a network system.
  • Non-Community production and consumption taxes: Although these revenues were intended for the individual states, the Reich could, according to Section 34 Clause 2 and Section 36, determine which taxes should be included.
  • Shipping: According to the principle of the bound separation system, the individual states collected taxes from all ships that use "shipping companies". In addition, the empire levied taxes from foreign ships and from river tariffs.
  • Other: Here the income was separated, the Reich levied taxes, the states levied taxes.

The empire was allowed to distribute the income from customs duties, collective indirect taxes and financial monopolies to the individual states at its own discretion. A distribution key could have been used for this, in which the size of the area, the population, the financial strength etc. would have been taken into account. There is no provision for the other taxes, without the Reich having the authority to shape them. That is why the money would have gone to where it came from. A bill has been handed down, according to which a special rule was provided for the four free cities with their urban populations.

In modern terms, the FRV set up a financial equalization system. It should not level the differences between the individual states, nor redistribute them, but merely divide them up. Simon Kempny suspects that the FRV tended to have centralized the German financial constitution. Growing tasks would have required growing revenues, and the Constitution paved the way for that. Germany would have quickly become a state that would have received its income from taxes instead of from assets and its own economic activity. A modern, progressive income burden , as foreseeable in the individual states, would have prevailed earlier.

Fundamental rights

Lithograph on the basic rights of 1848. The National Assembly had already put it into force as a Reich law at the end of 1848 and then incorporated it into the FRV.

Similar to many earlier state constitutions, the FRV mentioned fundamental rights, but much more comprehensively. The freedom of the press with the abolition of censorship , the freedom of movement, the freedom of association and assembly and the freedom of belief as well as equality of denominations are examples of classical freedom rights. A citizen of the Reich was allowed to emigrate and enjoyed the consular protection of the Reich abroad.

The FRV made numerous statements on criminal law and, for example, largely banned the death penalty , pillory and corporal punishment. The Germans were only allowed to expropriate their property under certain circumstances . At most, exemption from school fees is to be regarded as a basic social right. In addition, the FRV wanted to abolish noble privileges; thereby it would have had a strong influence on the social structure of Germany.

effectiveness

States that adopted the imperial constitution in April 1849: The states with the note of twenty-eight in yellow and Württemberg and the revolutionary ruled areas of Saxony, Palatinate and Holstein in orange

In jurisprudence there are different opinions as to whether the imperial constitution has become legally effective. Some authors use a mediating language, for example that it has not had any legal effect; other authors write that de jure the constitution came into force with its promulgation on March 28th (according to the material publication principle, and not only on April 28th through publication in the Reichsgesetzblatt ). That was also the view of the National Assembly. According to Kempny, today's Federal Constitutional Court recognizes the legal validity of the imperial constitution and refers to it in several decisions. The National Assembly did not succeed in actually enforcing the Imperial Constitution because of the military superiority of the opposing (larger) individual states.

There was a wide response from the population and many appeals for the recognition of the constitution. It was supported by 30 mostly smaller states. But above all the larger, so-called medium-sized states refused to accept the constitution, as did the Prussian king, during whose cabinet (conditionally) and the Prussian National Assembly had spoken out in favor of acceptance. As a result, the constitution was not filled with life, for example the planned parliamentary elections did not take place.

The constitution was adopted in a collective note dated April 14, 1849 (known in literature as the Twenty-Eight Note ): Baden, Kurhessen, Hessen-Darmstadt, Oldenburg, both Mecklenburg, Schleswig-Holstein, Lauenburg, Braunschweig, Nassau, Sachsen-Weimar, Saxe-Koburg-Gotha, Saxe-Meiningen, Saxe-Altenburg, three Anhalt, both Schwarzburg, both Reuss, both Hohenzollern, Waldeck, the four free cities. Added to this are Württemberg and Lippe-Detmold, as well as the revolutionary governments of Saxony and the Palatinate.

In Württemberg, which had accepted the FRV, a ministerial indictment came in 1850. The basis for this was the FRV, which had also regulated this case for individual states. The state parliament turned against a minister and his conclusion of certain foreign contracts. The Württemberg State Court of Justice did not declare the FRV to be invalid, but the Minister did not violate the Württemberg provisions in the specific cases. It later emerged that only one in twelve judges had held the FRV to be invalid, even though half of the judges had been appointed by the king.

reception

The imperial constitution served as a model for the draft of the Erfurt Union constitution only two months after its promulgation . Prussia wanted to make its own attempt at unification, under more conservative auspices in cooperation with the middle states. Even if this union did not come into being in the end, the draft constitution preserved much of the Frankfurt model and helped in part that the reaction time did not turn out to be worse. Prussia wanted to use the Union to advertise itself and forbade itself too extreme conservative excesses in its own constitution of 1850. There are also many basic rights of the German people, albeit in a weakened form.

When the North German Federal Constitution of 1867 was being drawn up, the Frankfurt Imperial Constitution was heavily taken into account. The constituent Reichstag changed Bismarck's draft constitution in their favor. Later in the empire it remained a basis for discussion for the development of the constitution. When the Weimar constitution was drawn up in 1919 , the Frankfurt catalog of basic rights was an important model. In the Parliamentary Council (1948–1949) the fathers and mothers of the Basic Law quoted from the FRV.

rating

There is agreement in history and constitutional law that the Frankfurt constitution is a great achievement and that it would have made Germany one of the most progressive constitutional states. According to Kühne, it was the only German constitution "for the implementation of which broad sections of the population actively fought." Just think of the Prussian strike of 1932, when the breach of the constitution was accepted without a fight in order to understand "which political and psychological prerequisites are necessary."

In terms of its theoretical structure, the constitution was a coherent and practicable litter, according to Günter Wollstein , as well as balanced and progressive. It retained its charisma even in the modernization efforts of imperial Germany. E. R. Huber: "The Frankfurt attempt to combine the great principles of freedom, equality of unity and central leadership under constitutional law, retained its determining power in Germany's political thought and action for a full century."

Anna Caroline Limbach particularly emphasizes the great consistency with which liberal goals were laid down in criminal law. The recognition of inviolable human rights and the humanistic thinking in the National Assembly are evident in the abolition of the death penalty, as it was only implemented in the Basic Law a hundred years later, but also in the establishment of oral and public indictment proceedings instead of the inquisition proceedings , which recognize the subject quality of the accused. The separation of powers and the independence of the administration of justice demonstrated the same consistency. Liberal criminal law should not be allowed to be restricted even in times of emergency - although the MPs themselves had experienced a threatening crisis situation (the September riots ).

See also

literature

  • Horst Dippel (ed.): Visions of a future Germany. Alternatives to the Paulskirche constitution 1848/49. Duncker & Humblot, Berlin 2017. 3 volumes.
  • Jörg-Detlef Kühne : The imperial constitution of the Paulskirche. Model and realization in later German legal life. 2nd edition, Neuwied 1998, ISBN 3-472-03024-0 .
  • Simon Kempny: The state financing according to the Paulskirche constitution. An examination of the financial and tax constitutional law of the constitution of the German Empire of March 28, 1849. Tübingen 2011, ISBN 978-3-16-150814-1 .

Web links

Commons : Paulskirchenverfassungs  - Collection of pictures, videos and audio files
Wiktionary: Paulskirchenverfassungs  - explanations of meanings, word origins, synonyms, translations

supporting documents

  1. ↑ For details Simon Kempny: On the way to the German federal state. The second draft of the preliminary commission of the constitutional committee of the German constituent assembly dated September 26, 1848. Journal of the Savigny Foundation for Legal History, German Department (ZRG GA), Volume 129 (2012), p. 391 fn. 3 .
  2. ^ Jörg-Detlef Kühne: The imperial constitution of the Paulskirche. Model and realization in later German legal life. Habil. Bonn 1983, 2nd edition, Luchterhand, Neuwied 1998 (1985), p. 34.
  3. ^ Ernst Rudolf Huber : German constitutional history since 1789. Volume II: The struggle for unity and freedom 1830 to 1850 . 3rd edition, W. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart a. a. 1988, p. 590.
  4. ^ Jörg-Detlef Kühne: The imperial constitution of the Paulskirche. Model and realization in later German legal life. Habil. Bonn 1983, 2nd edition, Luchterhand, Neuwied 1998 (1985), p. 43.
  5. ^ Ernst Rudolf Huber: German constitutional history since 1789. Volume II: The struggle for unity and freedom 1830 to 1850 . 3rd edition, W. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart [u. a.] 1988, pp. 769-773.
  6. ^ Jörg-Detlef Kühne: The imperial constitution of the Paulskirche. Model and realization in later German legal life. Habil. Bonn 1983, 2nd edition, Luchterhand, Neuwied 1998 (1985), pp. 36/37.
  7. ^ Jörg-Detlef Kühne: The imperial constitution of the Paulskirche. Model and realization in later German legal life. Habil. Bonn 1983, 2nd edition, Luchterhand, Neuwied 1998 (1985), pp. 44/45.
  8. ↑ Christian Jansen: Unity, Power and Freedom. The Paulskirche left and German politics in the post-revolutionary epoch 1849-1867 . Droste, Düsseldorf 2000, p. 69.
  9. ^ Ernst Rudolf Huber: German constitutional history since 1789. Volume II: The struggle for unity and freedom 1830 to 1850 . 3rd edition, W. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart [u. a.] 1988, pp. 634/635.
  10. ^ Ernst Rudolf Huber: German constitutional history since 1789. Volume II: The struggle for unity and freedom 1830 to 1850 . 3rd edition, W. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart [u. a.] 1988, p. 823.
  11. ^ Ernst Rudolf Huber: German constitutional history since 1789. Volume II: The struggle for unity and freedom 1830 to 1850 . 3rd edition, W. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart [u. a.] 1988, pp. 821, 824; Wolfgang Graf Vitzthum : The Importance of Member State Constitutional Law in the Present , in: Publications of the Association of German Constitutional Law Teachers , Issue 46, 1988, p. 8 ff., Here p. 30 .
  12. ↑ Klaus von Beyme: The political system of the Federal Republic of Germany . 9th edition, Westdeutscher Verlag, Wiesbaden 1999, pp. 366, 384.
  13. ^ Ernst Rudolf Huber: German constitutional history since 1789. Volume II: The struggle for unity and freedom 1830 to 1850 . 3rd edition, W. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart [u. a.] 1988, pp. 821/822.
  14. ^ Ernst Rudolf Huber: German constitutional history since 1789. Volume II: The struggle for unity and freedom 1830 to 1850 . 3rd edition, W. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart [u. a.] 1988, p. 823.
  15. ^ Ernst Rudolf Huber: German constitutional history since 1789. Volume II: The struggle for unity and freedom 1830 to 1850 . 3rd edition, W. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart [u. a.] 1988, pp. 827-829.
  16. ^ Ernst Rudolf Huber: German constitutional history since 1789. Volume II: The struggle for unity and freedom 1830 to 1850 . 3rd edition, W. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart [u. a.] 1988, p. 824, p. 829/830.
  17. ^ Ernst Rudolf Huber: German constitutional history since 1789. Volume II: The struggle for unity and freedom 1830 to 1850 . 3rd edition, W. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart [u. a.] 1988, p. 825.
  18. ^ Ernst Rudolf Huber: German constitutional history since 1789. Volume II: The struggle for unity and freedom 1830 to 1850 . 3rd edition, W. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart [u. a.] 1988, pp. 831, 841.
  19. ^ Ernst Rudolf Huber: German constitutional history since 1789. Volume II: The struggle for unity and freedom 1830 to 1850 . 3rd edition, W. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart [u. a.] 1988, pp. 832-833.
  20. ^ Simon Kempny: The state financing after the Paulskirche constitution. Investigation of the financial and tax constitutional law of the constitution of the German Empire of March 28, 1849. Diss. Münster, Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen 2011, pp. 287–290.
  21. ^ Simon Kempny: The state financing after the Paulskirche constitution. Investigation of the financial and tax constitutional law of the constitution of the German Empire of March 28, 1849. Diss. Münster, Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen 2011, pp. 290/291.
  22. ^ Simon Kempny: The state financing after the Paulskirche constitution. Investigation of the financial and tax constitutional law of the constitution of the German Empire of March 28, 1849. Diss. Münster, Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen 2011, pp. 291–295.
  23. ^ Simon Kempny: The state financing after the Paulskirche constitution. Investigation of the financial and tax constitutional law of the constitution of the German Empire of March 28, 1849. Diss., Univ. Münster, Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen 2011, pp. 22–24.
  24. ↑ Dietmar Willoweit: German constitutional history. From the Franconian Empire to the division of Germany . CH Beck, Munich 1990, p. 233.
  25. ^ Ernst Rudolf Huber: German constitutional history since 1789. Volume II: The struggle for unity and freedom 1830 to 1850 . 3rd edition, W. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart [u. a.] 1988, p. 853.
  26. ^ Jörg-Detlef Kühne: The imperial constitution of the Paulskirche. Model and realization in later German legal life. Habil. Bonn 1983, 2nd edition, Luchterhand, Neuwied 1998 (1985), pp. 88/89.
  27. ^ Jörg-Detlef Kühne: The imperial constitution of the Paulskirche. Model and realization in later German legal life. Habil. Bonn 1983, 2nd edition, Luchterhand, Neuwied 1998 (1985), pp. 132-136, 146/147.
  28. ^ Jörg-Detlef Kühne: The imperial constitution of the Paulskirche. Model and realization in later German legal life. Habil. Bonn 1983, 2nd edition, Luchterhand, Neuwied 1998 (1985), p. 52.
  29. ^ Günter Wollstein: German History 1848/49. Failed revolution in Central Europe . W. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart 1986, pp. 157/158.
  30. ^ Ernst Rudolf Huber: German constitutional history since 1789. Volume II: The struggle for unity and freedom 1830 to 1850 . 3rd edition, W. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart [u. a.] 1988, p. 821.
  31. ^ Anna Caroline Limbach: The criminal law of the Paulskirche constitution 1848/49 . Dissertation Münster 1994. Peter Lang, Frankfurt a. M. [u. a.] 1995, pp. 161/162.