NO.177 The essence of the Supreme Court of Japan
The Supreme Court of Japan ignores Article 97 of the Japanese Constitution.
(See article NO.108 Principle of Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution)
However, the response of the Japanese government will cause an unexpected situation.
The Japanese government's method of crisis management assumes all situations in advance and creates a manual to deal with those situations.
In an emergency, an unexpected situation always occurs. The Japanese government cannot cope with unexpected situations.
The two articles on the next link are related to the Typhoon No. 19 disaster, but the situation will be the same even if “unexpected” encountered by the Self-Defense Forces dispatched overseas.
Article NO.154 Exposed by Typhoon No. 19.
About the judgment by the Japanese Supreme Court.
NO.018 In the Supreme Court decision of the reception contract trial in December 2017, the Broadcasting Law was decided as constitutional. Japanese democracy committed suicide.
In July 2019, a decision was made in the Sendai District Court for the former Eugenic Protection Law trial.
The Sendai district court should have made a judgment based on the judgment of the Supreme Court.
The Sendai District Court ruled that the former Eugenic Protection Act was in violation of the constitution. The Sendai District Court violated Article 13 of the Japanese Constitution, which guaranteed the right to pursue happiness for the people.
I wondered why it was not a breach of Article 97 of the Japanese Constitution. I felt that violating basic human rights was far more important than violating the right to pursue happiness.
If Article 97 of the Japanese Constitution is the basis for the judgment, the judgment must be based on the basic human rights that humankind has built in history.
The Japanese Supreme Court will not be able to decide on the basis of the judgment itself.
“The government decides what happiness is allowed and what is not allowed.” It was a decision to clarify this principle.
When deciding "I violate the right to pursue happiness", it must be clear what is happy.
When the Supreme Court defines, “It is the happiness of the public to perform suicide attacks against Japanese enemies as a kamikaze by government orders,” and the kamikaze bill is constitutional.
The Japanese Supreme Court may have planned a constitutional amendment.
The Japanese Supreme Court will want to remove Article 97 of the Japanese Constitution. The Japanese Supreme Court would like to decide for themselves what is its basic human rights.
The Japanese Supreme Court still has a job for that.
The task of deciding that the referendum law is constitutional remains in the Japanese Supreme Court.
Constitutional amendments in accordance with the procedures of the referendum law for violation of the constitution are invalid.
However, the Japanese Supreme Court will decide that the referendum law is constitutional.
Just as the Supreme Court decided that the broadcasting law was constitutional.
The Japanese Constitution was created based on the Charter of the United Nations.
Interpretation of Article 96 of the Japanese Constitution should be based on the UN Charter.
Based on Article 108 of the United Nations Charter, Article 96 of the Japanese Constitution should be interpreted to determine whether the referendum law is constitutional or unconstitutional.
Once the constitutional amendment is realized, Japan will repeat the tragedy of World War II.
Prior to that, if the referendum law is judged unconstitutional, the constitutional amendment becomes invalid.
It is prevented that the tragedy of World War II is repeated.
However, if the Japanese Supreme Court ruled that the referendum law was constitutional, the tragedy of World War II would be repeated.
At that time, the Japanese Supreme Court will be judged as a war crime in the United Nations War Court.