American reacts to Germanys Constitution... I mean "Basic Law"

Thank you for watching me, a humble American, react to The Basic Law
of Germany
Original video: • The Basic Law
Thanks for subscribing for more German reactions every weekday!
Join as a member to get the ridiculous emojis and badge!
/ @ryanwass
Got a video request? You can fill out this form!
forms.gle/gmHJZBJqHk8cagjSA
Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. ALL RIGHTS BELONG TO THEIR RESPECTIVE OWNERS

[@Reboegga]

He pronounces the word "Reich" correctly. Every other pronunciation clearly indicates a person not being German.😂

[@stefanmohr8450]

very english english he speak

[@avsbes98]

Yeah, he was born in the UK but has been living in Germany for decades and has become a German by Naturalization at some point.

[@headhunter1945]

Well, you don't need to roll your R so theatrically for German pronunciation. However, his pronunciation is not wrong, for sure.

[@walkir2662]

That R is way to overstressed, sounds southern, but other than that, yeah.

[@Philemaphobia]

Stressing the R went out of fashion about the same time the Grundgesetz was made, for similar reasons, many Germans today aren’t able anymore to roll their Rs at all. The pronounciation of the word Reich is correct and it cracked me up, that an American questioned THAT out of all things, instead of quickly doing a basic Google search. Lovely :)

[@himmel-erdeundzuruck5682]

Missing our first article: The human dignity is untouchable.

[@tsurutom]

The official translation is: (1) Human dignity shall be inviolable. To respect and protect it shall be the duty of all state authority.

[@Sunabe77]

Which is a pretty mich worthless article cause human dignity is hurt all time in Germany

[@Drae-909]

@@Sunabe77 If you have evidence of it you can sue in front of the Bundesverfassungsgericht

[@irminschembri8263]

@@Sunabe77 Echt jetzt ??

[@stef987]

@@Sunabe77 I don't think it's worthless, but I agree that dignity often seems to be subject to interpretation. I personally think that for example people who live off social benefits often have to give up some dignitiy, as well as many pensioners these days. Not to speak of refugees who have to live under bad conditions in various camps (even though that's to a great extend probably an issue in EU law - though there have been stories of people having been treated badly in refugee homes within Germany, as well). There often seem to be conditions in nursing homes and also to some extend in psychiatric hospitals that may make you question how this is compatible with the basic law. Some people would probably argue now that "they have it good" compared to how people live in other parts of the world (or to what people have endured in the past). But that's what I meant with "subject to interpretation". For many people dignity might (and seems to be) be protected when the poor and/or helpless are given the absolute minimum and don't have to sleep on the street, while for others dignity means much more.

[@zorrothebug]

While "Basic Law" is used in translations (online translators) for "Grundgesetz" I would prefer the term "Fundamental Law" as this expresses the weight of this law. It's not basic like 'easy' but everything is based on it, like a foundation, thus fundamental.

[@geraldbalzer2429]

Didn't see your comment before. I think "Foundational Law" would be another propper translation.

[@jort93z]

Basic law is the term used in official translations. "Fundamental law" is not used in any official translations i could find.

[@zorrothebug]

@@jort93z that's what I said? And I added _"I_ would prefer..." nothing more.

[@jort93z]

You said online translations. The term basic law is also used for all official offline translations.@@zorrothebug

[@hoodyniszwangsjacke3190]

But "the base" means in this case the foundations of the laws. So it equals "fundamental law".

[@babyfacedan4825]

The guy pronounced „reich“ right

[@stef987]

Basically, yes, but I still heard an English accent.

[@lhuras.]

After he spend more time in germany speaking german, than in England speaking english he really should pronounce it correct

[@silkwesir1444]

@@lhuras. apparently you are unfamiliar with the concept of phonetics.

[@soewenue]

​@@lhuras.Not really. If u wanna speak german like a native u have to learn many New sounds, also to speak with ur throat and so on. It isnt impossible, but In 99,99999% u can still say where the Person comes from while speaking german. It is as impossible as It is for me as a german speaking czech like a native, because they have also one Sound only existing in their language and for me with "german language education from birth" it is close to impossible to adopt These sounds.

[@lhuras.]

Guys. Like I already wrote: rewboss is living longer and talking more in german, than he lived and talked in England/english. And he is no 20 years young boy anymore. I'm not talking about someone who by chance sometimes or for a rather short period of time talks and pronounces german. And if you take a look at his Channel you will see, that he meanwhile is more german, than a actual german (🤣) of course you can pronounce certain things in a foreign language, if you put some effort into it.

[@Chrischi3TutorialLPs]

The reason it was called "Basic Law", besides what is mentioned in the video, is that the assumption was at the time that Germany would be reunited rather quickly, at which point, a proper constitution could be drafted.

[@saladien9987]

And then they didnt

[@Muschelschubs3r]

@@saladien9987 Because it simply isn't necessary.

[@fabianstiefel1586]

​@@saladien9987after several decades it had proven to be good enough as a constitution. so instead of drafting a completely new one the united parliament repesenting the complete german population simply accepted the existing Grundgesetz to still be used as constitution. As the elected official of the complete german state acccepted it, it's the official constitution. until the day a new constitution (following the rules in the Grundgesetz) might be drafted and accepted by the entirety of germany. Nothing controversial here...

[@RustyDust101]

Yes, that's ONE reason why it was called the Grundgesetz, the Basic Law. The other was that it took well over a year to draw up the basic articles for the Grundgesetz, and some were frankly revolutionary compared to other constitutions. During that year it was hoped that the Soviets would come around and allow for reunification. Calling it basic law was also a sign that the Federal Republic of Germany was also only a temporary state until reunification could occur. So it was hoped by not FIXING the Grundgesetz as exemplary for ALL Germans but only those in the west that the Soviets wouldn't have too many objections to allow a reunification. However, the Soviets "encouraged" the East German government to become a very clearly distinct country by declaring their own constitution as permanent. While West Germany didn't. The West German government always wanted the option open for a reunification thus never changed the name. Then over the years the Basic Law became the de facto NAME for the constitution. No, I do NOT (!) subscribe to that conspiracy theory, as the so-called Reichsbürger movement were involved in some pretty extremist, right-wing actions, right up to planning a coup in Germany a few years ago. They are among the biggest nut-jobs in the country, and quite dangerous in their almost fascistic ideas. A little Google search for Reichsbürger is going to give you quite some insights.

[@wernerviehhauser94]

There are quite a number of states that, upon becoming democratic, adopted large parts of the Grundgesetz for their own constitition. Only the Magna Carta might have been used as a blueprint more often

[@alcar32sharif]

Andrew Bossom (rewboss) was born in UK and he has been living in Germany for 30+ years. Before Brexit he applied for German citizenship and he is now a German citizen through successful naturalization.

[@drummertp12]

you know i was wandering at that because he has a british accent even tho his pronounciation of Reich etc was spot on

[@redzora80]

he is a great youtuber when it comes to explain germany and german stuff in english. He explains it very nice and his english is ver good to understand.

[@tomokig2655]

You should also point out his travel videos which focus not only on the most prominent locations but also some rural hidden gems.

[@berlindude75]

*was born in the UK and has been living

[@wandilismus8726]

Rewboss is the boss

[@BlueFlash215]

Most of Americans don't know (as the rest of the world) that the Constitution was supposed to be rewritten. Thomas Jefferson explained, and it is stated in his letters, that the Constitution should not bind those who weren't born when the Constitution is signed. Therefore, every 19 years the Constitution should be rewritten to the needs of the Youth so the old generation can't bind the upcoming new citizens

[@yannickurbach5654]

Well, it can be changed if necessary. Consciously deciding not to rewrite it is also a way of rewriting it, with the exact same content. It's just less work.

[@The_Elbinho]

@@yannickurbach5654 But there certainly is a difference between having a vote every 19 years if the constitution should be rewritten, or just keeping it as is as long as 'nobody complains'

[@yannickurbach5654]

@@The_Elbinho Have you submitted a draft? If not, what do you want to vote on? Just "about time we made a new one, someone do it for me"?

[@The_Elbinho]

@@yannickurbach5654 As a non US citizen, I don't think I am eligible to draft a new US constitution, and I also don't believe throwing your constitution out every x years would be a good system. I merely pointed out that the current US system for the most people is not (as you stated) a 'conscious decision to not rewrite'

[@HappyBeezerStudios]

@@The_ElbinhoI guess a new constitution would take big inspiration from the previous one. That is how many countries do it. Just how many german laws are from before WWII or how many US laws are pretty much the same as UK or French laws. You look at the good things that are already around and keep those.

[@MichaEl-rh1kv]

The constitution of the Netherlands is also called "Basic Law" (in Dutch: Grondwet - translated to German: Grundgesetz - translated to English: Basic Law) since 1815. The same goes for Denmark ("Grundloven", first version from 1849, from which about two thirds are unchanged), Finland ("perustuslaki"), Norway ("Grunnlov"), ... So "Grundgesetz" is an established name for constitutions in North Europe as well as in Germanic languages in general. The word "constitution" translates in German to "Verfassung" (which can also be used for e.g. the bodily or medical constitution). The constitutions neither of the German Empire 1871-1918 nor of the German Empire 1919-1945 (during the Nazi regime it was still in most parts formally valid, but overridden respectively partly suspended by rules made by the Nazi government) were put into effect by a referendum, but in the first case by parliamentary decision of the first "Reichstag" elected under the rules of the same constitution (which makes it rather invalid), in the second case by majority vote of the constituent national assembly in Weimar. The Grundgesetz was drafted by the Parliamentary Council, a constituent assembly of delegates of the (at the time 11) state parliaments, ratified by 10 of the 11 parliaments (as Rewboss explained), and then signed and promulgated by the presidium and most of the members (2 communist delegates rejected it) of the Parliamentary Council. The German unification treaty of 1990 between the FRG and the GDR used the Article 23 of the Basic Law which allowed all parts of Germany to join the Federal Republic and adopt the Grundgesetz (=basic law), therefore only small changes were necessary (as well as some changes agreed on in the unification treaty), which were then ratified by Bundestag and the GDR parliament, the Volkskammer. (By the same article the Saarland had joined in 1957, which was 1947-1956 a kind of French protectorate with an own constitution, government, citizenship, National Olympic Committee and national soccer team.)

[@Winona493]

Wow! So much knowledge! Thank you very much!!!!

[@jbird4478]

Yes, and when we talk about the constitution of the US for example in Dutch, we also use the same word (grondwet). Germans, oddly enough, use the word Verfassung and not Grundgesetz for the US constitution as well for those countries that call it basic law in their own language (e.g. Verfassung der Niederlande, and not Grundgesetz der Niederlande).

[@felixlohrer9600]

Small addition: Some Articles of the Weimarer Reichsverfassung (first democratic phase 1919 to 1933) still are valid (see article 140 of Grundgesetz)

[@HappyBeezerStudios]

The dutch name is extremely interesting. That almost sounds like english "ground word" or german "grund wert", which again shows that dutch is often written exactly how you would say it colloquially.

[@andreaskolbe7894]

It's kind of a "german thing" to be very precise in language, not only because we have the possibility to be this exact, we are used to this as well and it just makes so much sense 😊

[@HappyBeezerStudios]

And sometimes we take it further than it needs to.

[@DancingAndDreaming]

My favorite part of the German Basic Law is Article 1, Section 1: (1) Human dignity shall be inviolable. To respect and protect it shall be the duty of all state authority. The authors of the Basic Law had their priorities.

[@steffahn]

And with this, it should be mentioned that the constitutional court is quite powerful and has ruled several decisions based on the human rights part of the constitution, especially this first article. So whilst one might naively expect that a general and imprecise phrasing like this makes the law useless, it actually truly *does* get applied.

[@HappyBeezerStudios]

And nowhere is precisely described what "human dignity" exactly is. It is expected that people simply know what is considered morally correct.

[@loyalm2468]

@@HappyBeezerStudios Like with everything it is up to interpretation for the enforcing power!

[@kosmique]

the authors? check who signed it off. check who approved it.

[@drummertp12]

i would like to echo comments form fellow germans here that "fundamental law" is closer to the weight and meaning inherent to the German term "Grundgesetz" as the translation "basic law" used in the video

[@itsmebatman]

The main reason as to way they didn't name it constitution was, that it could have been interpreted as giving up West Germany's claim on East Germany. Or in other words naming it constitution would have meant they don't consider the East as Germany anymore, which would have made reunification more difficult, legally.

[@ChrisTian-rm7zm]

I think that's a perfect explanation!"

[@user-ve7hn2dh8h]

Uhm that's not an explanation at all?!

[@ChrisTian-rm7zm]

@@user-ve7hn2dh8hAn important concern of West German domestic policy at the time was not to block the possibility of German reunification.

[@user-ve7hn2dh8h]

@@ChrisTian-rm7zm you don't say.. Why would the Grundgesetz being called Verfassung be an obstacle for unification?

[@ChrisTian-rm7zm]

@@user-ve7hn2dh8h it's more a psychological thing,

[@insu_na]

Americans always mispronounce the word as "Rike" and that just couldn't be more wrong, but it's not like Americans can correctly pronounce the German `ch` so it's not like something can be done about it.

[@CDP1861]

Of course something can be done. Make a little fun of them and butcher their language a little for a change. Then you will see how quickly they learn and improve. Or at least earnestly try. :-)

[@Carol_65]

Conversely, most Germans I know struggle with 'th'. Most of us have problems pronouncing something in another language. I think the fact that people try to communicate in another language should be applauded and encouraged--not criticized because they pronounce something incorrectly. The key is trying to communicate and understand one another.

[@rosshart9514]

Emerrikens ahr eiser tu lehsi ohr tu annedjukehtet or tu ärregent tu autspietch forrehn wörds korecktli.

[@hlfan]

I think you meant "pwonaunz" instead of the literal translation of aussprechen

[@rosshart9514]

@@hlfan Nou, ei heff sätt wörd wiss intent tschuhsen. Ei houp ze Emerrikens and Brittz will ouwerteek sis ikspreschn.

[@TackerTacker]

I think Rewboss was British and migrated to Germany after working here for a couple years, now he is more German and knows more about Germany than most Germans xD

[@FlowinEnno]

He is also very active on the r/germany subreddit.

[@oli-barelin]

He still lives and works in Germany, as far as I know he even has a German passport

[@TackerTacker]

@@oli-barelin Yes, that's what I'm saying, he is a German now.

[@embreis2257]

Rewboss came to Germany 30yrs ago and has acquired German citizenship now.

[@harryrabbit3928]

der weiß mehr als Habibi und Konsorten , aber wenn man lesen könnte wüsste man was für ein BS er dort von sich gibt. naja solange die Leute wissen wo sie ihr kreuz machen und was gerade moralisch okay ist reicht das ja aus in diesem Land...

[@nonchip]

5:30 yeah that's because he DOES pronounce german right. it's never been the "Reick"! just like our eggs aren't pronounced like the japanese no.

[@vomm]

There is no right or wrong. That's why we differ languages. In German it's "ch", in English it's "ck". In German you say "Michael", in English you say "Myckel". What's wrong? What's right? Both is right. It's only wrong if you say you're talking in German but you pronounce it in English. Then it could be considered "wrong". But even then not really - because there is neither a German nor an English law. You can talk how you want. That's why dialects exist. Is the Bavarian dialect "wrong", because they spell things different than in the High German dialect? No. Only if you say you're following the rules of the Duden. But if you don't state that, there is no wrong German. As long as you don't state you're talking Oxford English, there is no wrong English.

[@silkwesir1444]

our yes though is pronounced like the japanese no, close enough at least, which can be ... weird, let's leave it at that ;)

[@GGysar]

@@vomm Reich is a German word, which makes the English pronunciation wrong. The English word for "Reich" is "empire".

[@vomm]

@@GGysar Read my comment again, there is no "German words". What you mean is "German word according to Duden orthography". But he did not claim to talk by the rules of the Duden. Which means, it can't be wrong. Why is this so hard to understand? By your logic, every dialect and every other language than the High German dialect with it's rules defined by the Duden is wrong lol It's so weird how many people do not understand the Duden is no law nd you can only correct people's speech if they refer to the Duden, like in school or for officials or press etc.

[@GGysar]

@@vomm Dude, there is NO German dialect, in which "Reick" is correct, 0, none. It is just wrong.

[@Aqarrion]

I would translate it to fundamental law instead of basic law.

[@Fanch3n]

There is actually a mistake in the explanation of the Eternity Clause: It does not protect the first 20 articles, it protects articles 1 and 20. Several of the other articles have had changes made to them, for example Article 12a and Article 16. Edit: In fact, Article 20 was also changed: The right to resist against anyone attempting to change the constitutional order was added. The addition was possible because it doesn't impact the other protected parts, and the addition itself is not protected by the Eternity Clause.

[@geraldbalzer2429]

I think Art.79GG implies that the meaning of Art. 1 and 20GG may not be changed. At least, unless a new constitution is put into effect according to Art. 146GG.

[@mats7492]

they can be modified but the essence of the articles can NOT be changed! Now what is the essence.. thats up for the courts to decide!

[@silkwesir1444]

@@geraldbalzer2429 While technically true, by extension that includes the other 18 articles as well. That is implied by Art.1. Changing 2-19 would therefore result in a breach of 1 which is not permissible.

[@HappyBeezerStudios]

There is a big loophole: Change article 79 first to remove the eternity clause, then change the other articles. Well, unless article 79 itself is protected by it.

[@Fanch3n]

@@HappyBeezerStudios True. It's generally accepted that article 79 is implicitly protected, because it would be useless otherwise.

[@buurmeisje]

This guy is from Britain, but he's married to a German, has lived in Germany for I think about 30 years now (maybe 40?), speaks German and has German citizenship.

[@lemuel7223]

Eternity clause is only article 1 AND 20 - not 1 to 20. Articles between 1 and 20 can be changed a bit in last years (like article 13)

[@tridder]

And 79 itself

[@Jeyshara]

Oh... dude. This can be a rabbit hole for you to enjoy. With the 70 year festivals, I also heard a documentary (I guess it was a podcast, I'm searching for it on youtube for a long time now) with recordings of the people creating it. This was eye opening, how much thoughts they added to even words. I mean, the basic right law is WAY different then most or any other constitution, as it puts the people, the person first. Like the first sentence already. "Human dignity shall be inviolable. To respect and protect it shall be the duty of all state authority." This is even stronger in German. To protect the human dignity. That is the basic rule on what everything that follows is build upon. If you need to protect the dignity, you can't let them die or go bankrupt with medical bills. So a medical insurance is needed, that is state driven and protects all the ppl. Same with a basic social net. To save you if shit hits the fan. Not to let you live a life in luxury (as many think), but to provide you with the minimum you need to live a life in ... dignity. Roof over your head (and in a house, not a tent), medical security, enough to eat, enough for clothes, enough to life.

[@NoisyHill_]

Yes, I also think the first sentence is so important absolutely crucial. Some parties would love to diminish social laws and reduce unemployment benefits for example (especially FDP and AFD) but they just can't do it because Germany has to guarantee its citizen its human dignity which means to have enough money to live. I''m sooo glad we have this!

[@johannageisel5390]

@@NoisyHill_ Sadly, there are still a lot of instances where human dignity is de facto violated. :(

[@user-bz3hv7nt1p]

Hallo Freund des Grundgesetzes! Die Würde des Menschen ist unantastbar! Das ist einer der wichtigsten Sätze überhaupt. Darauf soll jedes Gesetz basieren. Yours Kai :)

[@noahsarkhive4482]

he pronounced Reich correctly. the english way “Rike” is quite wrong but somehow most english speakers seem to be incapable of doing a soft ch sound 😅

[@steemlenn8797]

Another reason for the different name was because people thought you can't make a constitution for Germany/Germans when 1/4 are literally not in there. And yes, the Basic Law was meant to be temporary until reunification, which allowed, as teh video said, for all Germans to adopt a constitution for all Germans. I think officially the Basic Law is a law of constitutaional rank. That's legalise for "workaround" if I ever saw one 😅

[@wZem]

One of these "state of emergency loophole" situations funnily is also where we derive our word "dictator" from. The dictator was a special role in the Roman parliament. A person was temporarily declared dictator, meaning someone who would dictate, in a state of emergency. Like a war for example. But eventually Caesar was declared "dictator for life" and that's where we get the modern meaning of dictator from. So yes, these state of emergency loopholes and dictatorships are historically very closely related.

[@MichaEl-rh1kv]

Rewboss was born as a Brit, but has now the German citizenship and lives for decades in Bavarian Franconia near to the Hesse border and Frankfurt.

[@ThorDyrden]

Artcile 1 of the German Basic Law is making me proud: "Human dignity shall be inviolable. To respect and protect it shall be the duty of all state authority."

[@NoisyHill_]

This is the best thing they could have done. It has so many good consequences for german citizens. We can be greatful.

[@hansmeiser32]

but isn't this the reason insults are illegal in Germany which is rather ridiculous?

[@viomouse]

​@@hansmeiser32why is that ridiculous? It's great

[@Lindwurm_Nx]

That's why we have a variety of "close-to-insults" xD

[@stevenvanhulle7242]

In this aspect the Belgian constitution is shameful. You have to go all the way to aticle 23 to read: "Ieder heeft het recht een menswaardig leven te leiden" ("Jeder hat das Recht, ein menschenwürdiges Leben zu führen", "Everyone has the right to live a life worthy of human dignity"). That being said, our constitution dates back from 1831, when priorities apparently were different from what they are today. (Art. 1 says that Belgium is a federal state, for instance). OTOH, 1831 was not _that_ long after the French Revolution...

[@kfusei]

Words on a piece of paper can't defend democracy or human rights, only people can. If most people decide they don't care, these things will disappear.

[@JakobFischer60]

This guy is Andrew from England. We have adopted him because he is so ice, and now he is a German and lives in the upper part of Bavaria where he makes fantastic videos about the annual crowning ceremony of the straw bale princess in his village.

[@f_f_f_8142]

The eternity clause is actually weaker than he makes it seem: it doesn't enshrine the articles in their wording but only the underlying fundamental ideas and the consensus seems to be that a whole new constitution could indeed just get rid of this mechanism and the ideas protected by it.

[@MrHerrS]

Fun fact: Despite calling it Basic Law, rather than Constitution, the federal institution responsible for the "Compliance" (like the Supreme Court) is called Federal Constitutional Court.

[@felixlohrer9600]

And in US, it is "only" a supreme court...

[@wanderwurst8358]

Strangely enough, we still have a Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht) and have not named it the Basic Law Court (Grundgesetzgericht). Nevertheless, it usually works quite well. 😅

[@silkwesir1444]

Because the Grundgesetz counts as our Verfassung. Simple as that.

[@jort93z]

Well, as has been explained in the video, the Grundgesetz IS the Verfassung, so it is Verfassungsgericht. Grundgesetz is just the name of this particular Verfassung. Same reason why you say Bundeskanzler and not Deutschlandkanzler. This particular Bund happens to be called Deutschland.

[@beldin2987]

As far as i remember as an 59 year old guy, it was also called here "provisional constitution" (Vorläufige Verfassung).

[@kosmique]

why does a 59 yr old guy have some woman's profile pic. stop being creepy.

[@stef987]

I think that the basic law is EXTREMELY important regarding the human rights. I also personally don't feel like it's something "basic" in the sense of being "simple" or something. I also don't feel like it's something temporarily. To me everyone having certain basics rights makes the "base" of the German society and government, it's the very foundation.

[@Muschelschubs3r]

Basic is used in the sense of "foundation". This is the law all other German laws have to adhere to. Google "Normenpyramide".

[@irminschembri8263]

To translate "Grund" by using " basic" is , well, not so good. " Fundamental" would be better. Unsere Konstitution steht auf einem Fundament oder Grund.

[@stef987]

@@irminschembri8263 yes, that's what I thought, too and was about to write something like that in my comment, before deciding not to bother.😅 "Basic" indeed feels like it can lead to misunderstandings, as it probably can both be understood as something that is "simple", "just a draft" or something like that, as well as as being "basic" in the sense of being "the base/basis/fundament". "Fundamental law" would indeed be better.

[@irminschembri8263]

@@stef987 👍

[@swanpride]

@@irminschembri8263 It's a little bit of both. It is "basic" in a sense that the paragraphs are fairly simple and easy to understand, since the minutia is fleshed out in other law books, it is also the "base" for all those other laws, since none of them can go against it. but it is also fundamental, since our whole democracy is built in it. One of the cases in which a German word offers a lot of interpretations which are all correct, hence making it way more fitting than the alternative word "verfassung".

[@hypatian9093]

One of the first twenty articles, and in my eyes one that is as important as it's mostly forgotten, is article 14 (2): "Property entails obligations. Its use shall also serve the public good."

[@soreiche]

At the beginning, the deployment of the Bundeswehr within Germany was only permitted for defensive purposes. Another reaction to the Third Reich. In 1962 there was a dramatic storm surge in Hamburg with 315 fatalities. At that time, Helmut Schmidt was Senator for the Interior. He has unconstitutional but necessarily asked the Bundeswehr for help. That was the reason for including the emergency in the Basic Law.

[@Philemaphobia]

Since 1949 the Grundgesetz was updated 67 times, the last time to allow digital publishing of the Federal Law “Newsletter”.

[@JP-pv2ze]

Believing that conspiracy is roughly on the same level as believing the american civil war was not about slavery at all. And it's the same kind of people believing that stuff.

[@Tim_OWL]

One important detail is missing. The reunification of Germany was seen as the highest commandment, and the basic law was meant to be a temporary solution until a reunified nation gets a final constitution for all Germans. So, the initial preamble of the Grundgesetz states: Das gesamte Deutsche Volk bleibt aufgefordert, in freier Selbstbestimmung die Einheit und Freiheit Deutschlands zu vollenden. / The entire German people remains called upon to complete the unity and freedom of Germany in free self-determination. After the reunification, which also is called „entry into the "sphere of action" of the basic law“, this „goal“ was achieved. Today, the preamble states: Die Deutschen in den Ländern Baden-Württemberg, Bayern, Berlin, Brandenburg, Bremen, Hamburg, Hessen, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Niedersachsen, Nordrhein-Westfalen, Rheinland-Pfalz, Saarland, Sachsen, Sachsen-Anhalt, Schleswig-Holstein und Thüringen haben in freier Selbstbestimmung die Einheit und Freiheit Deutschlands vollendet. Damit gilt dieses Grundgesetz für das gesamte Deutsche Volk./ The Germans in the states of [names of the 16 states] finalized in an act of free autonomy the unification and liberty of Germany. This Basic Law applies to the entire German people.

[@neuralwarp]

We should never have allowed you to reunify. Germans individually are delightful, but whenever they unite they're a nightmare.

[@blacksheep70]

There is also a saying in German which concludes the way of freedom our fundamental law (better translation than basic law in my honest opinion) shall provide: "The freedom of one individual ends where the freedom of another one begins". That also explains why freedom of speech does is not the same as it exists in the US. For example, insults or slander are not protected by freedom of speech (as it violates the dignity of the other). There is also a reason why the dignity is protected by the first article of the Fundamental Law, and not only by the 20th article.

[@siph0r154]

You are absolutely correct. If the German Federal State was to be abolished, then this whole security measure would be sidestepped. Right? Psych! Because every single state of Germany has their own Constitution as well. So even if we somehow collectively decide to break apart, (Which will just not happen.) the state constitutions basically protect their citizens instead. Like: NO! We thought of that eventuality. Our people will NEVER, EVER again go down that road.

[@ReinholdOtto]

He is from England, but has been living here for many years, and recently became a German citizen as well.

[@Skywolf76]

He is a British person living in Germany for a long time. Afaik, he's acquired German citizenship too a few years back.

[@rhysodunloe2463]

8:45 Another thing that stops the government from simply changing those 20 articles are the elected judges of the Bundesverfassungsgericht (federal constitution court) - just like the supreme court in the US - as well as the opposition in the Bundestag and the Bundesrat who have to agree with at least 2/3 of the votes to make changes in the constitution. But in the end, yes, laws are just words on a piece of paper and you can abide it by simply brutal force against those in charge of those laws - which in the case of the constitution is any citizen who holds on to those laws. Because article 20 says that if everything fails Germans have the right to resistance against anyone who does something to demolish the constitutional order and betrays them or others for their human rights. But if you read the first 20 articles you'd ask yourself who in their right mind could be against them.

[@CodeNascher_]

> I can't roll my Rs pretty sure you can. just pretend gargling water, without actual water. maybe practice with your head tilted back at first (just like actually gargling), but dry

[@daggel011]

First Article: *(1) Human dignity is inviolable. To respect and protect them is the obligation of all state power.* That is why our prisoners get treated like humans and not like caged animals as the USA do...

[@kosmique]

therefor the german courst system treats you like an animal. thus you land in prison to begin with. how is U-haft not violating anybodys dignity or freedom? how is it being mandatory to show ID not violating? german police can hold people for over 90 days while waiting for shit to happen in the background. do know that the usa has a tad more freedom for its citizens. i lived in both systems, went to both system's schools and worked for both u.s. and germany. both can learn from eachother.

[@arthur_p_dent]

2:02 Actually, the Grundgesetz does refer to itself as Germany's constitution, at least indirectly. - The court which, according to the Basic Law, decides whether a newly passed law is consistent with the Grundgesetz is called "Constitutional Court", not "Basic Law Court". - Political parties that seek to overthrow the democratic order of Germany, ie that go against the Basic Law, are definied by the Basic Law as "unconstititutional" - in the Preamble to the Basic Law, it reads "the German people, in the exercise of their constituent power, have adopted this Basic Law." etc

[@felixro1006]

I also watch rewboss, I love his videos. Rewboss is a British guy immigrated into Germany. He lives in a village with no car. I have very much respect for that as I wouldn't be able to do the same.

[@melchiorvonsternberg844]

I'm livin' only a few miles away from this British guy, who is roundabout 30+ years in Germany. Andrew made a lot of (sometimes very british) videos, about a lot of German topics. Nearly all of them, are great...

[@vomm]

The only problem is that there are no penalties for those who do not comply with the Basic Law, and everything in it must be interpreted by the courts, and this always happens in the spirit of the times. Thus, even the eternity clause is not as eternal as it pretends, and the rights arising from the first 20 articles are constantly changing, while politics blithely passes every year new laws that are rejected by the Constitutional Court, but until then had their validity.

[@Kiranbela438]

I wrote inside the cover of my basic law: "Against the background of the failure of the Weimar Republic and twelve years of National Socialist reign of terror, the Basic Law is intended to establish a constitutional and free democratic basic order. It had also acted for those Germans who, between September 1, 1948 and October 2, 1990, were denied a refined participation in its shaping. Understanding them as part of the constitution, the Parliamentary Council in Bonn gave itself this Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany."

[@tobyk.4911]

5:47 he is British (but has been living in Germany already for many years, and therefore knows German pronounciation)

[@protpirat7923]

The territory of the former GDR entered the area of application of the Basic Law in 1990. This is the formal process widely referred to as German reunification. It was not a merger of 2 nations. The GDR was not even recognized under international law by all states in the world.

[@fgregerfeaxcwfeffece]

He is a Brit who has been living in Germany for a long time. And his pronunciation is the correct one.

[@epic0249]

I think it’s funny that Americans still think that they’re so much better than Europe, while everything they have basically came from Europe in one or an other way 😂

[@jasoncornwall3324]

Important correction: Articles 1 *and* 20 are protected by the eternity clause. Not 1 *to* 20. The basic rights described in the articles 2 to 19 can be changed as long as their core ideas, which are dictated by the human dignity, are not touched upon.

[@ald00I]

ryan telling us to just change the name of the country to be able to commit human rights violations is... not what i expected

[@Al69BfR]

rewboss is worth following him, because he makes videos even Germans can learn something from

[@NyloElLobo]

The pronunciation of "Reich" was correct there ('Rrrrreich'). We role the R. And we also call France Frankreich and Austria Österreich, for example. The first article of the Grundgesetz btw is "Human dignity is innoviable. To protect it is the foremost duty of all state power". I reqlly like it ^^

[@HappyBeezerStudios]

rewboss is a great source for information about germany. He is a british expat, or rather a German with british migration background by now. Oh, and it's fine to still wish a happy birthday. We have a problem with wishing in advance, not afterwards.

[@Paul_Aaron_L.]

8:17 New constitutions do not need the articles that are protected by the eternity clause, since they only apply according to the bpb, "as long as the Basic Law applies to the Federal Republic of Germany." If the fundamental rights of the Basic Law had to be adopted in the new constitution and the aim of the new constitution was to better define the fundamental rights in order to prevent their misuse, the 19 fundamental rights would have to be adopted and then, among other things, the aforementioned fundamental rights would have to be formulated in a different form, which could be less misused, whereby 38 articles would be partially identical, without the fundamental rights taken over from the Basic Law having any sense at all.

[@simrock_]

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." can't have been that self-evident if they needed to be written down...

[@Mysterios1989]

There is quite a glaring mistake in the video. The eternity clause does not protect The Basic rights and all articles of the relationship between state and federal government. The eternity clause only protects Art. 1 and 20 GG, so the protection of human dignity and that Germany is a federal social democracy. Especially the other basic rights of Art. 1-19 are largely indirectly protected by the protection of Art. 1 and 20 (you cannot have a working democracy without freedom of expression for example, as well as freedom of religion as a result of the recognition of human dignity), but that protection is NOT automatic. There are library full of discussions which freedoms are and are not protected indirectly by Art. 1 or 20 GG. It is a good place to write about if you are a legal scholar, because it is rather unlikely that there will be a court decisions determining this, as no politician is eager to change the text of these articles anytime soon (just see how far they can push the legal limits within the text of the constitution), Also, the idea that a new constitution must have these articles in it is highly contested in the legal community and from what I gathered, the majority opinion is that they don't, as the constitution cannot imprint itself into a new constitution. That said, how much a new constitution can be promoted without falling into incitement to hatred laws and other areas is an open discussions, as no such attempts were really made yet.

[@theblackdragon5558]

The eternity clause from Art. 79 (3) GG actually only protects Art 1 GG *and* Art 20 GG. To change any of the other human rights you need 66.6% of the Bundestag to agree with you. Those can’t be changed in their core though, certain things can be altered a bit or something new can be added to stay up to date with new times

[@keyem4504]

Rewboss is British (originally) but fluent in German. His pronunciation of "Reich" was correct. He maybe rolled the R a little bit too much, but that's a dialect thing in the region he lives in in Germany.

[@Dr_Klops]

Andrew (Rewboss) is an Englishman living in Germany (Franconia).

[@helloweener2007]

Rewboss is English. His videos are nice, short, full of facts and a good quality.

[@kipchickensout]

we germans don't usually roll Rs either, he's a brit (originally) but he pronounces german words and sentences perfect or almost perfect so he's probably living here

[@jbird4478]

This "theory" reminds me somewhat of a recent theory in the Netherlands that the covid emergency law was not valid because the King had not signed it. Even if it were true (which it wasn't), that doesn't really matter if _everybody else_ accepts it as valid. Imagine going to court thinking you've found a perfect loophole, and the judge just laughs at you.

[@pkorobase]

A very important distinction in the Fundamental Human Rights is that the most fundamental ones are valid to ANY human in germany, and only some are only CITITZEN rights.

[@user-ki3fu6nb8p]

that "emergency" thing was added again in 2021 but worse than in its old version.

[@user-bp5qi4vq9l]

"Am I making sense?" As usual, no.

[@brentlowert2839]

Its a symbol to show the germans in the GDR they are not forgotten and wecare still one people. the goal is the reunification.

[@LostPhysx]

I wouldn't mind watching you researching a little more about the topics and trying to answer your questions that came up while reacting to something

[@protpirat7923]

What wasn't mentioned: Article 20 (4) contains an important right to defend the free-democratic basic order: “All Germans have the right to resist anyone who attempts to eliminate this order if no other remedy is possible.” Nobody knows what that means. But the wording of the Basic Law must always be interpreted. Many understand in this paragraph that they are allowed to defend the free-democratic basic order as a last resort with armed force.

[@noranjo6081]

yes it was meant to be temporary it was symbolical to call it basic law until Germany gets reunited and a real new constitution can be written It just worked really well, so that after reuniting they didnt want to draft a new one

[@klarasee806]

He pronounced „Reich“ 100% correct, although probably with some sort of a southern German accent (rolled r), so I would guess that this guy is a German native speaker or has lived here for a very long time.

[@wernerhartmann3195]

5:40 rewboss is an englishman living in Germany.

[@E85stattElektro]

As i heard that some state opposed the constitution i said to myself „It must have been Bavaria“. Till today they oppose literally everything 😂

[@rittersportfan]

There is an error in the video. The "eternity clause" doesn't protect the articles 1 TO 20, but the articles 1 AND 20.

[@gwaptiva]

Rewboss is German, according to his passport. He was born and raised in the UK, but has been in Germany for 30 years or so (and therefore it's not that weird he can occasionally be said to have gone native). He does know his stuff, though. And no, there is no need for a new constitution based on East Germany joining; they did that in full acceptance of the laws of the Federal Republic. And the reason for article 146 is that we won't come into the silly situation the US has, where the age and rigidity of the Constitution is holding you guys back

[@LeyCarnifex]

The eternity clause does NOT concern the _first 20 articles_ it concerns articles 1 _and_ 20, not 1 _through_ 20

[@Vukii92]

His English sounds a little bit like british English but his "british accent" isn't very pronounced, but as someone who said Reich with a German Accent it indicates to a Person from Germany that is really good in English or a Brit that lived reeeaaaally long in Germany. Also if it's of Interest, in Austria and I think in Germany too, you learn british English in School but most people switch to American English or a Mix (like me xD) of American and British English. Best Example would be probably Water :D many people in Austria would Pronounce it in a Mild British Way (Woter) but have other Words where they would pronounce it the American way. The same is true when writing something in English. And last but not least there is a difference between Reich and reich, the former means something like Kingdom, Realm or Empire and the later means rich :D

[@stampcollector74]

Every State in Germany has it's own constitution an there was a vote in every state. ... We may don't have a constitution on a federal level that was voted upon, but in every of the States there is one! Contentwise the constitutions are almost exactly like the basic law "word by word".

[@elfriedesommer938]

Yes, old german saying: change the name collect the fame.

[@schlaumensch]

Rewboss is great, please watch more of him!

[@Auvas_Damask]

The first and most important Grundgesetz of Germany is that human dignity is inviolable and because of this, insults are illegal

[@runningwild.flowerxoxo6296]

As Bavarian, i deeple apologize for being extra back then and also for everything going on here atm. We're not all CDU/CSU and Freie Wähler voters..

[@user-bp5qi4vq9l]

A presidential executive order can be challenged in SCOTUS quite quickly, esp. if it is something really big (which they rarely are).

[@neuralwarp]

The weakness in the US constitution is that the SCOTUS can't be overruled. The People should have a power of veto.

[@dreasbn]

Grundgesetz is our law of laws.. and we do have a constitutional court of justic... so it's just an unusual name for the law, but of course every other law has to be in accordance to the Grundgesetz....

[@redzora80]

you should maybe watch some more stuff of him. He explains a lot of germany and germans tuff very well. And his english is quiet good to understand

[@jkbonn1]

Word define laws, so they are important.

[@Auvas_Damask]

Here in Germany, every law must correspond to the GRUNDGESETZ too

[@antrazitaj5209]

It may be just playing with specific words, but in legalese specific words are everything And rewboss is originally from the UK

[@BlackWater_49]

2:17 I'm a law student and I've never heard that before. As far as I know the reason was that only countries could have a national constitution so calling the _Grundgesetz_ a constitution would have meant accepting the division of Germany into the _Federal Republic of Germany_ (BRD) and the _German Democratic Republic_ (DDR) which was unacceptable. Basically the _Grundgesetz_ was initially only intended as a stopgap measure, enough to get the allies to lift their occupation and establish a working German state again but not quite far enough to set in stone the devision of Germany into East and West, and was meant to be replaced by a new constitution for all of Germany once reunification had been achieved. Well, reunification came and went but the _Grundgesetz_ was crafted so well that no-one really wanted to go through all the hazzle again of crafting a new constitution for all of Germany so instead the states that were formerly part of the DDR (under strong Soviet influence) just acceded to the area of application of the _Grundgesetz._

[@HappyBeezerStudios]

Constitutions aren't the only laws that are simply words on a piece of paper. All laws are like that. And yes, your "change the name of germany" is a good loophole. We could just call it "Westfränkisches Reich" and would be fine and even go back to historic precedent for the name.

[@negonaki]

In fact the Basic Law isn't just words on paper. You aren't only supposed to follow it. There is a constitutional body that controls how politicians deal with the basic law.

[@torstenjosephkartelmeyer4623]

Well, everyone can always choose to ignore any law, what then normally leads to a court case. regarding to this, if anyone steps over any law written down in the GRUNDGESETZ (Basic Law), every German citizen has the rhight to sue in court. And the Name of this highest court in Germany is: Tadaah, not "Bundesgrundgesetzgericht", sondern Bundesverfassungsgericht. Verfassung means constitution. Auf sowas kommen nur wir deutschen ... lol.

[@madeye6896]

5:50 im german. He pronounce Reich almost perfectly in German

[@HalfEye79]

There is an error. Not the first 20 articles are part of the eternity clause. Just the articles 1 and 20. Rewboss is from England but lives in Germany for a very long time.

[@harryrabbit3928]

Habibi das betrifft Artikel 1 bis 20 einschliesslich , Welcome to Germany^^

[@HalfEye79]

@@harryrabbit3928 Zitat: "Eine Änderung dieses Grundgesetzes, durch welche die Gliederung des Bundes in Länder, die grundsätzliche Mitwirkung der Länder bei der Gesetzgebung oder die in den Artikeln 1 und 20 niedergelegten Grundsätze berührt werden, ist unzulässig. " Willkommen in Deutschland.

[@harryrabbit3928]

@@HalfEye79 Deswegen ruht ja auch die Wehrpflicht und ist nicht abgeschafft weil es von 1 bis 20 geht , aber schreib weiter^^

[@xaverlustig3581]

@@harryrabbit3928 Die Ewigkeitsklausel schützt 1 UND 20, nicht 1 bis 20. Die Wehrpflicht wurde nicht aus dem Grundgestz gestrichen, weil es dafür keine Mehrheit gab. Mit einer entsprechenden Mehrheit könnte das aber gemacht werden, ohne die Ewigkeitsklausel zu verletzen.

[@HalfEye79]

@@harryrabbit3928 Ach, da kennt jemand das Gesetz besser ... als das Gesetz selber. Oder du weißt nicht, was das Wort "Zitat" bedeutet.

[@little_forest]

And I call it, the federal republic of Ryan Wass! ;)