+1, basically the answer comes down to: technically no, practically yes. This answer is far more nuanced than the accepted one.

By that definition, France wouldn't be a sovereign state either. And of course none of this affects legal authority, court orders, etc. But a very good explanation of the history.

@Jordy well if legal reality was simple enough even crazies would struggle to to find what they thought were loop holes big enough to destroy their lives over.

Exceptionally detailed answer, thank you! But this part has surprised me: "Given the fact that the US has bases in Germany that violate German laws routinely" Could you please elaborate on that?

-1 Sorry, but this completely follows the logic of the Reichsbürger movement, which is roundly rejected by ALL constitutional scholars and legal experts. It also quotes some of their talking points, without considering the legal background. Example: „Germany is not a fully sovereign state“ due to NATO and EU obligations (with a link to a 2 min extract of a speech by Wolfgang Schäuble, a leading conservative politician. If that were true, there would be no sovereign states, since any contractual obligations limit a states autonomy of decision.

@zovits Example: Constitution (Art26) forbids the things going on at Ramstein airbase, Germany as a base for aggressive wars.

@DocM Tracing their arguments and evaluating their points is exactly the point. Is it not clear enough in refuting their claims in praxi while also highlighting the faults accumulated from the government that made parts of this argument even possible? – These treaties and pacts and unions are exactly that, relinquishing some sovereignty in favour of closer co-operation. One reason for Brexit? Please clarify if you read the A as endorsing Reichsbürger? (That I would have to rectified soon…)

This argumentation doesn't make any sense. Indeed, the original Grundgesetz was meant to be provisional, but it has since (with some modifications, notably the removal of the note about it being provisional) been adopted as the constitution of germany. It's also worth pointing out that there's no strict requirements something must fulfill to be a constitution; A constitution is a constitution when it acts as one, which the Grundgesetz undoubtedly does.

@Cubic Except for your first sentence I completely agree. But aren't all your points made also in the answer? Even as early as tl;dr? Please clarify if you feel it doesn't do so clearly enough.

@LangLangC You say "Germany [..] has a de-facto constitution, but refuses to officially call it as such". That's just wrong, see for instance the official website of the Bundestag - very first sentence on that page "The Grundgesetz ist the constitution of the Federal Republic of Germany".

This answer appears to be "they have a constitution and a peace treaty but they don't call it that". Which appears to be nitpicking in the extreme.

"not all scholars agreed on the legal status of Germany or whether it ceased to exist, continued transformed or was founded anew, twice or thrice after the war.". But do any think that it doesn't exist?

@DJClayworth Indeed. It is nitpicking, and it is so in the extreme. But it is nitpicking done by the governemnt itself and by the Reichsbürgers! The German government is on record for doing this manouvering precisely because for the reasons above (among others) – No proper scholar now denies the existence of constitution or a state of peace that followed WW2 in 1990. The disputes were about what it (The Reich!) is or was and how far its reach was or would be, and what would follow from that for praxis. Germany is seen officially as as limited in sovereignty as is France(by treaties).

Did you mean to say "constitution ersatz" (first paragraph)? Shouldn't e.g. it be Konstitution ersatz, Konstitutionsersatz, Verfassung ersatz, or Verfassungsersatz?

It is just that I don't think "constitution" is a German word - that it should start with "k" instead of "c".

@PeterMortensen As I read it, both "consitution" and "ersatz" are English words; it just happens that ersatz originated as a German loanword, but that's coincidental to this being a discussion about Germany. Although in that case, it would be more natural to say "ersatz constitution", since adjectives generally go before nouns in English.

This is a terrific answer; thanks for it.

"Konstitution" exists as a word, but its meanings do not commonly include "Verfassung" in the meaning of a political instrument. It is usually employed to mean "physical constitution", for example of an athlete. BTW, "Reich" is still a very charged word among germans, using it in any context pertaining to german politics will usually make you look like either a monarchist or a neonazi.

The claims are "not completely baseless" in precisely the same sense that claiming Obama has no birth certificate because his birth certificate says "Certificate of Live Birth" on it is "not completely baseless". Which is to say, the claims are indeed completely baseless.

Please don't keep the "update necessitated solely by comments" part entirely in small text. It's very long and having such small text over an extended length is very difficult to read.

@LangLangC : Thank you for taking the trouble to explain all this. To someone (me!) who doesn't speak German, you make the difficult legal issues much easier to understand. Governments have a way of blurring the issue, which is very easy to do in a legal document.

@LangLangC : Brexit is certainly a response, in part, to the perception that the UK has lost its sovereignty (due to loss of control over who can enter the UK to work here). It is,in part, also a perception that the UK government did not tell the truth - in 1972 - about what the real effect of EU membership would be. The Reichsburgers seem to feel a similar thing, that German politicians did not tell the truth (in 1948/49 and/or in 1990): so one, at least, of their arguments has a similarity to the reasons underlying Brexit.