Republic Protection Act

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Basic data
Title: Law for the Protection of the Republic
Short title: Republic Protection Act (unofficial)
Type: Imperial Law
Scope: German Empire
Legal matter: Criminal law ,
special administrative law
Original version from: July 21, 1922
( RGBl. I p. 585)
Entry into force on: July 23, 1922
Last revision from: March 25, 1930
(RGBl. I p. 91)
Entry into force of the
new version on: 		March 28, 1930
Last change by: Section 1 G of June 2, 1927
(RGBl. I p. 125)
Effective date of the
last change: 		July 23, 1927
(§ 2 G of June 2, 1927)
Expiry: December 21, 1932
(Section 12 (2) Regulation of
December 19, 1932,
RGBl. I p. 548 f.)
Please note the note on the applicable legal version.

The Republic Protection Act ( Law for the Protection of the Republic ) was a German law during the Weimar Republic . The immediate cause for this was the murder of Reich Foreign Minister Walter Rathenau . Strictly speaking, there are two laws: The First Republic Protection Act was valid from 1922 to 1929, the second from 1930 to 1932. It banned organizations that were directed against the “constitutional republican form of government” and their printed products and assemblies. Politically motivated acts of violence such as the murder of members of the government were punished more severely. In addition, the law established a state court for the protection of the republic.

The first law established an exception order and violated the Weimar Imperial Constitution . The State Court was actually an inadmissible special court alongside the Reich Court . It could only come into force through a two-thirds majority in the Reichstag that broke the constitution . That is also why it was controversial. The second law no longer contained any unconstitutional elements.

First Republic Protection Act

Emergence

Reich Minister of Justice Gustav Radbruch

The law had already been preceded by ordinances for the protection of the republic . They were issued by the Reich President in 1921 and then in 1922 immediately after the Rathenau murder . Its content already corresponded to that of the law in essential points. The interpretation of the Reich Minister of Justice Gustav Radbruch and the Reich Chancellor Joseph Wirth that they were only directed against right-wing radicalism led to the dispute in the Reich government and also in the Reichstag .

On June 25, 1922, Wirth made the much-quoted saying in the Reichstag: “There stands the enemy who trickles his poison into the wounds of a people. - There is the enemy - and there is no doubt about it: this enemy is on the right. ”The historian Horst Möller wonders whether it would not have been wiser to separate the moderate from the extreme right. However, the outrage against the German National People's Party and the agitation of its member Helfferich was justified.

The Reich government wanted to cast the content of the ordinances immediately into legal form. The draft came from the Reich Ministries of Justice and the Interior. However already said Wilhelm Marx of the fraction of the center that one should not react with an emergency law in an exceptional case of emergency ordinances. Above all, the Free State of Bavaria had reservations, as Prime Minister Lerchenfeld said:

  • An exceptional order is unnecessary.
  • Former members of the Reich government should not be included.
  • The ordinances had already only turned against right-wing radicalism.
  • Above all, the draft law curtails the rights of the states: Instead of state authorities, a Reich authority will be responsible for certain crimes.
  • With retroactive effect, the law also affected previous crimes.

Bavaria only found comprehensive support with its criticism from Württemberg . However, in a meeting with the Prime Ministers of the federal states on June 29, the Reich government was dissuaded from the idea of ​​having the draft law introduced by the Reichstag. Instead, the Reichsrat , the representative body of the states, should be involved. After a few changes, the Reichsrat adopted the bill on July 3, with 48 votes to ten. The one-sided orientation towards the right was repealed by a new formulation, so that radical left-wing endeavors were also affected: Instead of the republican form of government or, as Bavaria wanted, the constitutional form of government, the law protected the constitutional republican form of government. In the third reading of the Reichstag, this became the constitutionally established republican form of government. In the Reichstag the right-wing parties had also condemned the Rathenau murder , but in the Republic Protection Act they criticized the exceptional provisions, the exceptional court and the provisions that were directed against the former sovereigns.

303 MPs voted in favor of the law on July 18, 102 against, while four abstained. The votes in favor came unanimously from the USPD , SPD , DDP and the center and the majority from the DVP . The DNVP , BVP and the Bavarian Farmers' Union were against it . The approval for the associated civil service law was lower. Both laws received a two-thirds majority, which was necessary for the “ constitutional breach ”. The retrospective assignment of jurisdiction to the State Court of Justice was unconstitutional, as this deprived the accused of the (normally competent) “legal judge”. In addition, the Civil Service Act concerned the civil servants' “vested rights”.

Other standards

In addition to the Republic Protection Act, there were other laws and ordinances that also came into force on July 21, 1922. The aforementioned Civil Service Act (law on the duties of civil servants for the protection of the republic) obliged civil servants to be faithful to the constitution. The Reichskriminalpolizeigesetz set up a Reichskriminalpolizeiamt and arranged for the establishment of state police offices. You were charged with the detection and prevention of criminal offenses, including state security matters. The Reich Criminal Police Office took care of cross-border cases.

A law on impunity provided amnesty for high treason . Cases affected were from the period from 1920, when there was the last law on impunity, to the end of 1921. However, the treasonous companies were not allowed to be associated with serious crimes against life or limb. The law only benefited left-wing radicals and was a concession to the USPD and KPD, whose approval was needed for the Republic Protection Act and the Civil Service Act.

development

In Bavaria there was a serious conflict between the Bavarian state government and the Reich. On July 9, Prime Minister Lerchenfeld announced that the measures would not be applied in Bavaria. The Prime Minister repeated his criticism and complained about the "politicization of the criminal justice system". After the Republic Protection Act came into force on July 23, the state government issued its own Bavarian ordinance. In it she assigned jurisdiction for criminal matters to the Bavarian People's Court. The Bavarian Minister of the Interior prohibited associations and assemblies if necessary.

If necessary, the Reich Government could have responded by executing the Reich President or, for example, calling the Reich Court. But it was uncertain how the Imperial Court would judge. The Reich and Bavaria agreed on a protocol on August 11th with concessions from both sides. Bavaria waived its ordinance, while the Reich made promises about the application of the Republic Protection Act:

  • Cases of minor importance were referred to the Bavarian authorities.
  • The Bavarian People's Court dealt with those cases that were already pending.
  • The Oberreichsanwalt worked with the state authorities and only called in non-state officials if the state authorities agreed.
  • The State Court was to be filled with judges who came from different regions of Germany.
  • The state court should be divided into senates. De facto, this boiled down to the establishment of a “southern German” Senate to deal with southern German cases.
  • Among other things, the Reich government acknowledged the federal principle and affirmed that it did not want to transfer any sovereign rights of the states to the Reich.

The Civil Service Act and the Reich Criminal Police Act were in effect permanently, even after 1933. The Republic Protection Act, on the other hand, was only to be valid for five years, until July 23, 1927. As early as March and April 1926, the Reichstag passed two amendment laws: Since then, the State Court was no longer for criminal matters and some penalties have been reduced. The expulsion, for example, has changed from a mandatory to an optional requirement.

In the summer of 1927 it was about an extension of the Republic Protection Act. But this also required the approval of the German Nationals in the Reichstag, who had originally voted against the exceptional law. But now the DNVP was involved in the Reich government. Since Chancellor Wilhelm Marx's center insisted on the extension, the DNVP agreed. In doing so, she succeeded in ensuring that the extension lasted only two years and that the State Court was repealed (the Reich Court was given jurisdiction). Two years later, however, the DNVP was in the opposition and refused a further extension, as did the NSDAP , the business party and the KPD . In the vote in the Reichstag on June 28, 1929, the request for an extension (until December 31, 1930) missed a two-thirds majority (263 votes in favor, 166 against). The law expired on July 23, 1929.

Second Republic Protection Act

Reich Minister of the Interior Carl Severing

Politically motivated violence and press offenses soon followed. At the beginning of December 1929, the Reichstag received a draft of a new version of the Republic Protection Act. Reich Interior Minister Carl Severing of the SPD argued: "A state that gives up its protection gives up on itself." However, there was no chance of a two-thirds majority. Therefore, the unconstitutional parts had to be removed from the draft law, especially the provision on the former sovereigns ("Kaiser Paragraph"). On March 18, 1930, the Second Republic Protection Act received a majority in the Reichstag: 265 votes in favor from the SPD, DDP, DVP, Center BVP, German Peasant Party, 150 votes against from DNVP, ChrNA , Economic Party, DHP, NSDAP and KPD.

The Reich government had not set a time limit in the draft, but the final law stipulated that it expired on December 31, 1932. On December 19, 1932, the Reich President issued an emergency decree that the law would expire ten days earlier, in favor of a new, permanent state protection ordinance (ordinance of the Reich President on the maintenance of internal peace of December 19, 1932).

The second law differed in some respects from the first, for example the special criminal protection for members of the government was omitted. However, the provisions were essentially retained. If the Second Republic Protection Act was less effective than the first, this was mainly due to the political situation. After the radicalization of the masses, heightened threats of punishment had little effect, and the conflicts between the Reich and the Länder prevented cooperation on the protection of the constitution, which the law was based on. The dictatorship measures and the emergency decrees of the Reich President became of greater importance.

literature

  • Gotthard Jasper : The protection of the republic. Studies on the state safeguarding of democracy in the Weimar Republic 1922–1930 , Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen 1963.
  • Ernst Leffmann : Law for the Protection of the Republic . Bernheimer, Mannheim, Berlin, Leipzig 1931.

Web links

supporting documents

  1. ^ Ernst Rudolf Huber : German constitutional history since 1789. Volume VI: The Weimar Imperial Constitution . W. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart [et al.] 1981, pp. 660/661.
  2. ↑ Horst Möller: The Weimar Republic. An unfinished democracy . 9th edition, Deutscher Taschenbuch-Verlag, Munich 2008, p. 161.
  3. ^ Ernst Rudolf Huber: German constitutional history since 1789. Volume VI: The Weimar Imperial Constitution . W. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart [u. a.] 1981, pp. 661-663.
  4. ^ Ernst Rudolf Huber: German constitutional history since 1789. Volume VI: The Weimar Imperial Constitution . W. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart [u. a.] 1981, p. 664.
  5. ^ Ernst Rudolf Huber: German constitutional history since 1789. Volume VI: The Weimar Imperial Constitution . W. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart [u. a.] 1981, p. 664.
  6. ^ Ernst Rudolf Huber: German constitutional history since 1789. Volume VI: The Weimar Imperial Constitution . W. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart [u. a.] 1981, p. 665.
  7. ^ Ernst Rudolf Huber: German constitutional history since 1789. Volume VI: The Weimar Imperial Constitution . W. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart [u. a.] 1981, pp. 668-671; Ders .: German constitutional history since 1789. Volume VII: Expansion, protection and fall of the Weimar Republic . W. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart [u. a.] 1984, p. 257.
  8. ^ Ernst Rudolf Huber: German constitutional history since 1789. Volume VI: The Weimar Imperial Constitution . W. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart [u. a.] 1981, p. 665.
  9. ^ Ernst Rudolf Huber: German constitutional history since 1789. Volume VI: The Weimar Imperial Constitution . W. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart [u. a.] 1981, pp. 683/684; ders .: German constitutional history since 1789. Volume VII: Expansion, protection and fall of the Weimar Republic . W. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart [u. a.] 1984, p. 666.
  10. ^ Ernst Rudolf Huber: German constitutional history since 1789. Volume VI: The Weimar Imperial Constitution . W. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart [u. a.] 1981, pp. 684/685; ders .: German constitutional history since 1789. Volume VII: Expansion, protection and fall of the Weimar Republic . W. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart [u. a.] 1984, p. 667.
  11. ^ Ernst Rudolf Huber: German constitutional history since 1789. Volume VII: Expansion, protection and fall of the Weimar Republic. W. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart [et al.] 1984, p. 1188.
  12. ^ Ernst Rudolf Huber: German constitutional history since 1789. Volume VI: The Weimar Imperial Constitution . W. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart [u. a.] 1981, pp. 685-687.