NO. 003 The referendum law for amending the constitution violates the current Article 96 of the Japanese Constitution. However, the Supreme Court will decide that it is constitutional. This is because Japanese courts intentionally ignore Article 97 of the Japanese Constitution. In Article 96 of the Japanese Constitution, the procedure of revision of the Constitution of Japan has been defined.・ ・ ・ Theme label: The Japanese Supreme Court ruled in violation of the Constitution, no Japanese understood the Japanese Constitution in the past 70 years,

Japanese courts will intentionally ignore Article 97 of the Japanese Constitution. This article is a provision that guarantees the people the basic human rights that have been built up in human history, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Because of the existence of this article, the concept of “public welfare” found in the Constitution of Japan is also attached to basic human rights universal to humankind and cannot be defined by the Japanese government.

If this article is ignored, public welfare can be defined by the Japanese government. Since basic human rights that are against public welfare are not allowed, the Japanese government can deprive the basic human rights of the people as the government desires. And it becomes possible for the government to set the public's duty to realize public welfare as desired.

Like the former Japanese Empire.

If the Supreme Court complies with this Article 97, I judge that the Supreme Court should judge the constitutional amendment as unconstitutional. However, in reality, I think the Supreme Court will decide that the referendum law is constitutional.

Article 96 of the Japanese Constitution stipulates procedures for amending this constitution. I interpret that the referendum law for amending the constitution violates this Article 96.

Paragraph 1 This amendment of the Constitution must be approved by more than two-thirds of the members of the House of Representatives, and the Diet shall propose it, propose it to the public, and go through its approval. This approval requires the approval of a majority in a special referendum or a vote held during an election set by the Diet.

Here, “approval” is interpreted as a positive expression of intention “approved”. If you are refused to respond when asked for approval, it will be considered as “approved.”

In other words, those who did not vote for the referendum will be regarded as "rejected approval". In other words, the requirement for a constitutional amendment is “at least the majority of all voters agree.”

The current referendum law stipulates that the establishment requirement is “a majority of valid votes.” This violates Article 96 of the Constitution of Japan. The establishment of a constitutional amendment by the procedure of the referendum law for violation of the constitution is invalid.

In the future, there may be a time for Japan to choose to reject the San Francisco Peace Treaty, withdraw from the United Nations, stop guaranteeing basic human rights, and become a fascist state again. At that time, a constitutional amendment will be made.

At that time, the Japanese Supreme Court may decide that the referendum law is constitutional in light of Article 96 of the Japanese constitution before the revision.

In December 2018, the Japanese Supreme Court decided that the NHK reception contract trial and the Broadcasting Law were constitutional. Like this.

(I read the Supreme Court decision in the NHK reception contract trial. I judge that this decision violates Article 97 of the Japanese Constitution.)

At that time, the Allied nations, which are the original member states of the United Nations, will seek to withdraw the decision making that Japan will become a fascist state. And they will ask Japan to invalidate the Supreme Court decision based on the referendum law and invalidate the constitutional amendment.


TOP Article
Message to Lady M