Weimar Constitution (HW 7)

Following the end of World War I a German National Assembly gathered in the town of Weimar, in the state of Thuringia in January 1919 to write a constitution for the Reich nation was to be a democratic federal republic governed by a president and parliament.

The Constitution of the German Reich usually known as the Weimar Constitution was the constitution that governed Germany during the Weimar Republic (1919–1933). The constitution declared Germany to be a democratic parliamentary Republic. It technically remained in effect throughout the existence of the Third Reich from 1933 to 1945. Gerhard Anschutz (1867–1948), a noted German teacher of constitutional law, was the leading commentator of the Weimar Constitution.

The main features of the Weimar Constitution were that the president was to be elected every 7 years by the German public over the age of 20. The chancellor was appointed by the president and had to get a majority of support off the Reichstag or Parliament. The Reichstag was voted for by the German public by the technique of proportional representation.

First Part-Article 42

"The Reich President, when taking his office, swears the following oath:
I swear to devote my energy to the welfare of the German people, to increase its prosperity, to prevent damage, to hold up the Reich constitution and its laws, to consciously honour my duties and to exercise justice to every individual.
The addition of a religious formula is acceptable."

Interpretation:

This article is quite clear; it is definitively stating what the President must recite once he is in a position to rule. The oath is of the general tasks and duties in which are necessary in being carried out to have a successful presidency. Oaths are important because they are a solemn promise, often invoking a divine witness, regarding one's future action or behavior; but words  as we know it come easy, often uttered without any thought or sincerity behind them. Do we really mean those words? Promises are not made to be broken. They are meant to be kept, and if not, that translates as a sign of untrustworthy. When a President takes an oath (or affirmation) before giving testimony, he is assuming the role of an official, that of "witness under oath", for the duration of his testimony. That official position entails a special obligation to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, and in that capacity, one is punishable in a way he would not be as an ordinary person not under oath. Therefore, perjury is a high crime, which is "violation of an oath".

Example: President Clinton lied under oath in his civil case when he denied a sexual affair, a sexual relationship or sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky.


Second Part-Article 114

"The rights of the individual are inviolable. Limitation or deprivation of individual liberty is admissible only if based on laws.
Persons deprived of their liberty have to be notified, at the next day on the latest, by which authority and based on which reasons the deprivation of their liberty has been ordered; immediately they have to be given the opportunity to protest against the deprivation of liberty."

Interpretation:

This article declares that individuals in society are protected under law to maintain their freedom. It is only when violations have been made that one's liberty is compromised and even then the individual has to be made fully aware of such happenings in a timely fashion. Also, the individual has to be given the right to express their displeasure and opposing views for the given accusations made against them.

This article is important and necessary because it allows there to be equality and even ground between the individuals that may end up in a situation as such. No one should ever be denied the right to defend themselves when accused. If people were just stripped of their freedom without cause that would be highly unethical and unfair, and therefore creating an unjust and broken system. So the fact that this article supports personal justice is satisfactory, but within time things change…

Example: Six weeks after the 9/11 attacks, Congress enacted the USA PATRIOT Act, a sweeping new law that was passed in great haste and secrecy, and that many regard as riddled with flaws that seriously compromise our fundamental freedoms.

The Virginia Bill of Rights Coalition is a diverse ad hoc organization composed of individuals and organizations concerned with the diminished state of the nation's civil liberties. It is our position that the dangers we face today are not sufficiently addressed by this ill-considered new law. On the contrary, we feel that the Act may constitute a greater danger to America than the one it seeks to thwart. And we deplore what appears to be its fundamental assumption: that all of us are enemies of the state.

As presently defined the Act:
• Permits clandestine searches of the homes of American citizens suspected of no crimes;
• Authorizes searches of the private records of libraries, businesses, physicians, hospitals, banks, schools and other organizations without probable cause;
• Creates a vague new crime known as "domestic terrorism," applicable even to lawful protests;
• Authorizes arbitrary surveillance of religious services and political forums;
• Permits detention of American citizens without benefit of due process or counsel;

These activities are conducted in secret with little oversight or public accountability. Many members of Congress who initially favored the measure are now inclined to reject some of its more problematic provisions, but are encountering stiff pressure from the White House and its legislative allies. In response many grass-roots efforts have sprung up across the nation to encourage Congress to take action to protect our freedoms.