Specifically, the German Constitution was drafted by parties associated with the Weimar coalition, and very much reflects the lessons learned from the fall of the Weimar Republic.
Yes, that's also what I though. The new German constitution was heavily based on the Weimar constitution, but the parts that made Weimar unstable were replaced so those failure modes no longer apply, e.g. Weimar's destruktives Misstrauensvotum was replaced by konstruktives Misstrauensvotum, cf [1, 2].
According to Leonard Peikoff, the laws of the Weimar Republic which touched on Human Rights all had an "out" for the government to suspend rights in case of a national emergency or "for the common good." Is this accurate and is this still the case today?
But more importantly, the post-war constitution was not allowed to be amended in ways that would contradict its "liberal democratic basic order" (banning a rerun of the Enabling Act).
Which are much more limited than Weimar emergency powers. Only specific freedoms can be limited (certain types of privacy, movement, and career), limited legislative powers devolve onto a proportionally-assembled subset of the full legislature rather than to the executive, and the federation can only take control of state forces in emergencies that cross state borders.
Plus a specific exception that says a state of emergency can't be called against labor disputes.
It's been really interesting listening to German radio this last year, as we're passing 100th anniversaries of assorted formative events of the Weimar era. The idea of the Bundesrepublik being the successor of the republican Reich isn't just a legal concept, it's a very deeply held view (at least among the political and journalistic classes).
