Reich law on the introduction of a provisional central authority for Germany

The Reich law on the introduction of a provisional central authority for Germany was passed on June 28, 1848 by the Frankfurt National Assembly . It can be seen as a provisional constitutional order of Germany that replaced the Federal Constitution of the German Confederation . It was supposed to exist until a definitive imperial constitution was passed.

The law laid down the organs of a “German federal state”, which at that time was still called the emerging German Reich of the revolutionary era. The provisional central authority mentioned in the title of the law was an imperial government consisting of the imperial administrator as a kind of substitute monarch and ministers. One day after the law was passed, on June 29th, the National Assembly elected Archduke Johann as Reich Administrator , who appointed Reich Minister on July 15th.

The still existing Bundestag of the German Confederation decided on July 12th on a provisional final federal resolution . In it the Bundestag recognized the election of the Reich Administrator and transferred its own rights to him. The office of imperial administrator survived the spring of 1849, when Prussia and other states de facto dissolved the national assembly and put down the revolution. In December 1849, the Reichsverweser transferred his duties to a Federal Central Commission . Although the Reich legislation of the National Assembly was later declared invalid by the renewed Bundestag, the Reich Administrator has never been questioned in retrospect.

prehistory

The Bundestag of the German Confederation had already dealt with a new body for a federal executive during the March Revolution . On May 3, 1848, he decided to set up a provisional federal enforcement agency, which should consist of three members. One should be appointed by Austria, one by Prussia. Bavaria should submit a list of three candidates and the member states of the Bundestag's narrow council (with the exception of Austria, Prussia and Bavaria) then elect a candidate. The Fifties Committee , which is preparing the National Assembly, criticized the fact that only the member states decided on the members, and Austria delayed the appointment of a member. The view prevailed that the decision had come too late and it was not carried out.

Originally the National Assembly had only received the mandate from the Bundestag to reform the federal constitution of the German Confederation. In the spirit of the constitutionalism of the 19th century, the new constitution should be agreed between the people (the directly elected National Assembly) and the governments of the individual states. The principle of agreement was intended to ensure legal continuity from the old Bundestag of the individual states to the new German nation-state. But the National Assembly ignored it; Its President Heinrich von Gagern was a constitutional liberal, but with a view to the republican left, he said in his opening address:

"We want to create a constitution for Germany, for the entire Reich ... The profession and the authority to create this lie in the sovereignty of the nation."

This nation’s sole right of decision was based on the recognition of the revolution and popular sovereignty. According to the constitutional lawyer Ernst Rudolf Huber, the term Reich referred to the fact that the new nation-state was not part of the continuity of the German Confederation, but of the Old Reich , which expired in 1806 .

The National Assembly set up a preparatory committee on June 3, followed by a debate on June 17, which lasted a week. The committee itself had again planned a board of directors with three members. For the occupation, there were considerations to choose three uncles of ruling monarchs, but of these only Archduke Johann of Austria was popular with the people. Another plan was to elect Johann and two members of the National Assembly. The left only wanted to see members of the board of directors, while the right wanted to delegate power to an individual. A right-wing liberal even thought of the Prussian king and was laughed at for it.

The Reichsverweser Johann von Österreich , elected by the National Assembly , 1848

Heinrich von Gagern then proposed that the National Assembly should arbitrarily, without the participation of the member states and contrary to the Bundestag resolution of May 3, elect a Reich Administrator to whom Reich authority was to be transferred. Archduke Johann was thought of. The plan could hope for great approval:

The unauthorized appointment by the National Assembly underlined its sovereignty.
The imperial power for an individual guaranteed a separate and independent authority, which could not be achieved with a multi-member directory.
One individual emphasized the principle of the unitary state versus the principle of federalism.
A prince as imperial administrator kept the way open for a monarch as head of the empire.
Because of his popularity, Johann was most likely acceptable to the left, and to the right because he belonged to the high nobility.
As an Austrian, he symbolized the inclusion of Austria in a future Greater Germany . However, this annoyed von Gagern with the Prussian government.

In the end, the Act on Provisional Central Power received 450 votes in favor out of 100 votes against. One day later, on June 29th, Archduke Johann was elected by 436 of the 548 MPs present. On the same day, the individual states congratulated the Archduke and assured them that they had previously spoken out in favor of him as a candidate. Johann accepted the election on July 5th.

content

Constitutional diagram for the provisional constitutional order created by the Central Power Act

The law envisaged a rudimentary system of government typical of the constitutional monarchy . The "central power" can be translated as a monarchical government, which includes ministers in addition to the monarch (the imperial administrator). The Reichsverweser was to be elected by the National Assembly, but it was irresponsible. He called the ministers at will. The ministers countersigned the acts of the Reich Administrator and thus assumed responsibility for the National Assembly. They were allowed to speak in the National Assembly and had to appear there and provide information upon request.

About the tasks of the central authority it was said:

“2) The same shall
a) exercise executive power in all matters which concern the general security and welfare of the German federal state;
b) to take over the overall direction of the armed forces, and in particular to appoint their commanders in chief;
c) to exercise the international law and commercial policy representation of Germany, and to appoint envoys and consuls to this end. "

Central power and the National Assembly jointly decide on war and peace as well as on treaties with foreign powers.

Some expressions often used later are not found in the law, which only speaks of the imperial administrator and ministers. They came from the constitutional tradition. The Reich Ministry were the ministers without the Reich Administrator; The head of the Reich Ministry appointed by the Reich Administrator was designated as Prime Minister .

Declaration by the Bundestag

The imperial law was problematic for the governments of the individual states because they did not want to openly oppose the revolution and the national assembly. The purpose of the Reichsgesetz, however, was to abolish the old order, although in the Bundestag's view only the individual states could unanimously make such decisions. It specifically stated in paragraph 13:

"When the provisional central authority comes into effect, the Bundestag ceases to exist."

On July 12, 1848, the Bundestag published a declaration that it was transferring its rights to the Reichsverweser. He emphasized the principle that the imperial constitution should be decided jointly by the national assembly and the member states. The Bundestag therefore did not speak of the end of its existence, but only of the end of its previous activities. This proved significant in 1850 when the Bundestag was reactivated.

Web links

Legal text. In: verfassungen.de. Retrieved May 30, 2019 .

supporting documents

^ Ernst Rudolf Huber: German constitutional history since 1789. Volume II: The struggle for unity and freedom 1830 to 1850. Verlag W. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart [u. a.] 1960, p. 624.
^ Ernst Rudolf Huber: German constitutional history since 1789. Volume II: The struggle for unity and freedom 1830 to 1850. Verlag W. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart [u. a.] 1960, pp. 620/621.
^ Ernst Rudolf Huber: German constitutional history since 1789. Volume II: The struggle for unity and freedom 1830 to 1850. Verlag W. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart [u. a.] 1960, p. 621.
^ Ernst Rudolf Huber: German constitutional history since 1789. Volume II: The struggle for unity and freedom 1830 to 1850. Verlag W. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart [u. a.] 1960, p. 625.
^ Ernst Rudolf Huber: German constitutional history since 1789. Volume II: The struggle for unity and freedom 1830 to 1850. Verlag W. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart [u. a.] 1960, pp. 625/626, 628.
^ Ernst Rudolf Huber: German constitutional history since 1789. Volume II: The struggle for unity and freedom 1830 to 1850. Verlag W. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart [u. a.] 1960, pp. 627/628.
^ Ernst Rudolf Huber: German constitutional history since 1789. Volume II: The struggle for unity and freedom 1830 to 1850. Verlag W. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart [u. a.] 1960, p. 628.
^ Ernst Rudolf Huber: German constitutional history since 1789. Volume II: The struggle for unity and freedom 1830 to 1850. Verlag W. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart [u. a.] 1960, pp. 631/632.
^ Ernst Rudolf Huber: German constitutional history since 1789. Volume II: The struggle for unity and freedom 1830 to 1850. Verlag W. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart [u. a.] 1960, pp. 632/633.

[1] Ernst Rudolf Huber: German constitutional history since 1789. Volume II: The struggle for unity and freedom 1830 to 1850. Verlag W. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart [u. a.] 1960, p. 624.

[2] Ernst Rudolf Huber: German constitutional history since 1789. Volume II: The struggle for unity and freedom 1830 to 1850. Verlag W. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart [u. a.] 1960, pp. 620/621.

[3] Ernst Rudolf Huber: German constitutional history since 1789. Volume II: The struggle for unity and freedom 1830 to 1850. Verlag W. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart [u. a.] 1960, p. 621.

[4] Ernst Rudolf Huber: German constitutional history since 1789. Volume II: The struggle for unity and freedom 1830 to 1850. Verlag W. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart [u. a.] 1960, p. 625.

[5] Ernst Rudolf Huber: German constitutional history since 1789. Volume II: The struggle for unity and freedom 1830 to 1850. Verlag W. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart [u. a.] 1960, pp. 625/626, 628.

[6] Ernst Rudolf Huber: German constitutional history since 1789. Volume II: The struggle for unity and freedom 1830 to 1850. Verlag W. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart [u. a.] 1960, pp. 627/628.

[7] Ernst Rudolf Huber: German constitutional history since 1789. Volume II: The struggle for unity and freedom 1830 to 1850. Verlag W. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart [u. a.] 1960, p. 628.

[8] Ernst Rudolf Huber: German constitutional history since 1789. Volume II: The struggle for unity and freedom 1830 to 1850. Verlag W. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart [u. a.] 1960, pp. 631/632.

[9] Ernst Rudolf Huber: German constitutional history since 1789. Volume II: The struggle for unity and freedom 1830 to 1850. Verlag W. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart [u. a.] 1960, pp. 632/633.