NO.177 The essence of the Supreme Court of Japan


The Supreme Court of Japan ignores Article 97 of the Japanese Constitution.

Raising the problem.

In December 2017, at the NHK reception contract trial, the Supreme Court ruled that "the broadcasting law is constitutional." This is the starting point for my skepticism about the Japanese Supreme Court.

Before that, I thought that the Japanese Supreme Court was a defender of basic human rights. Apparently, it seems different.
The Japanese Supreme Court will insist that we defend basic human rights. However, the interpretation of basic human rights is different between the Japanese Supreme Court and me.
I interpret basic human rights as basic human rights guaranteed by Article 97 of the Japanese Constitution.
Mankind has built up the concept of human rights throughout history. I understand that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a symbol of that.
I think that the human rights mentioned in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights are part of human rights established by mankind.
The preamble to the San Francisco Peace Treaty also uses the term purpose of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is an intermediate state for the purpose of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
“Freedom of ideology”, “Freedom of contract”, “Freedom of choice”, “Right to know”, etc. are universal human rights that human beings have built in history.
Article 97 of the Japanese Constitution guarantees universal human rights that are universal to all mankind.

The Supreme Court of Japan decides what is human rights. For this reason, I believe that the Japanese Supreme Court will ignore Article 97 of the Japanese Constitution.

Let's assume an extreme case.
“It is the human rights of the people to attack Kamikaze against Japanese enemies under the order of the Japanese government,” the court defines.
If the Japanese government enacts a law that unilaterally orders the citizens to attack Kamikaze, the Japanese Supreme Court will decide that this law is constitutional.

This could happen.
When Japan begins the war, the Japanese government becomes out of control. As a result, the war spreads and the Japanese government becomes increasingly out of control.
In that situation, both the Japanese government and the Supreme Court will completely lose reason.
In normal times, the Japanese government and the Supreme Court will make choices that could not be imagined.

Such a situation can be avoided if the proper principles are followed from normal.
If the importance of defending the proper principles is understood, the principles can be protected even in an emergency.

Neither the Japanese government nor the Japanese Supreme Court adheres to the proper principles. So the tragedy of World War II will be repeated.
There is no need to specify the SDF in the current Japanese constitution.


If the Self-Defense Forces are clearly stated in the Japanese Constitution, the Self-Defense Forces dispatched overseas will be subject to armed attack.
(See article NO.108 Principle of Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution)

The Japanese government will take appropriate measures and try to resolve the situation promptly.
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.


As soon as an unexpected situation occurs, the Japanese government will be out of control.
Every time the Japanese government takes measures, the situation will continue to deteriorate, and eventually the tragedy of World War II will be repeated.

This is the biggest reason why I have a sense of crisis at the Japanese Supreme Court.

About the judgment by the Japanese Supreme Court.

Judgment on NHK's reception contract trial in December 2017.
A refusal to consult with NHK was in dispute with NHK in a civil trial saying "The Broadcasting Law violates the Constitution of Japan that guarantees freedom of contract."
On the other hand, the Supreme Court decided that “the broadcasting law is constitutional”.

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.

Sentence created immediately after the decision. The Supreme Court decision becomes the precedent for subsequent trials.
Even with the current Japanese constitution, Kamikaze is judged as a constitution. I recognized it for the first time.

I read the sentence of the reception contract trial. The Japanese Supreme Court ruled the Broadcasting Law as Constitutional, based on the provisions of the Broadcasting Law as legitimacy.

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.



コメント

このブログの人気の投稿

Link to Hatena Blog. Complement this blog・・・and, Japanese Version Letetter to White House at Google Blogger ,and My Linkedin

No.311 Gov bond with zero interest. Allow only central bank to buy. Gov execute new projects using this funds. This bond redeemed only when inflation rate exceeds upper limit. Solve problem. Please judge.

No.308 Potential in India. ・・・“God prepared India for the crisis of the world.” Some Christians may think so.