North Korea is a hereditary dictatorship, South Korea is a country that cannot even abide by the Japan-South Korea Basic Treaty, and China is a country that has slaughtered tens of millions of its citizens and continues to commit atrocities by invading Tibet and Uighur.
June 1, 2019
The following book is a must-read for all Japanese citizens and for people worldwide.
It is full of facts that people who only read the Asahi Shimbun and watch NHK were completely unaware of—facts that they were never told about.
It is one of the best books in the post-war world.
Mr. Shoichi Watanabe is from Yamagata Prefecture, next to Miyagi Prefecture, my birthplace.
The people of Yamagata Prefecture must continue to be proud of the people of Japan and the world, that he is a native of their prefecture, that he is the most significant intellectual in post-war Japan, and that he is a genuine treasure of Japan.
The new Constitution should be revoked.
So, what should we think about the legitimacy of the Japanese Constitution, as argued by the scholars who defend it?
Theinamide's opinion, that of the only lawyer among constitutional scholars who has not graduated from university, makes the most sense.
In the Potsdam Declaration, the Emperor was "subject to" the Emperor.
After that, an order was given to create a constitution, and a draft was even imposed.
A "Draft Constitution Committee" was created to make this a new constitution, but 99% of their work translated the original draft of the occupation forces.
The Japanese committee members did not create the draft.
He was intimidated because the Emperor was under the rule of occupation forces.
Therefore, the Imperial Rescript on the Constitution has no legitimacy.
After all, it was "subordinate" to the Supreme Commander of the Allied Powers.
"I, based on the consensus of the Japanese people, am deeply pleased that the foundation for the construction of a new Japan has been laid, and I hereby approve the revision of the Imperial Constitution, which has been deliberated by the Privy Council and passed by the Imperial Diet by Article 73 of the Imperial Constitution, and I at this moment promulgate it."
The Imperial Rescript says this, but it is clear that it was not based on the consensus of the Japanese people.
During the Occupation, there was a "dress code," so there was no way that information could have leaked out, let alone that there could have been any criticism of the draft constitution.
So, the Emperor was forced to tell a lie.
How should we explain this situation?
The fact that Japan was under the Occupation of the Allied Forces and that the Emperor was subservient to the Supreme Commander of the Allied Powers meant that the Japanese government itself was subservient to the Allied Forces.
A new constitution was created under these circumstances, which means that it was a treaty based on the Potsdam Declaration with the occupying forces.
In other words, the Japanese Constitution is a treaty, not an ordinary one. To be precise, it would be better to call it the Basic Law of the Occupation Policy.
Because it is a treaty constitution, when the treaty ended, that is, when Japan regained its independence, the Japanese government should have declared the Japanese Constitution null and void and either enacted a constitution that would be a sovereign act, that is, a normal constitution, or returned to the Meiji Constitution, and at the same time, it should have revised the Meiji Constitution based on that procedure.
Furthermore, we should not continue to revere the Japanese Constitution, which was drafted by the occupying forces, and then amend it.
France experienced the Vichy regime (Note I) when Germany occupied it, so amending the Constitution is not allowed when part or all of the country is occupied.
When de Gaulle came to power, he made everything enacted under the Vichy regime null and void.
There is a debate about amending the Japanese Constitution, but this will come back to haunt us later.
Even as a layperson, I can see this, so future constitutional scholars will undoubtedly notice it.
If you amend a constitution created when Japan had no sovereignty, there will definitely be arguments later on that the Japanese people, after independence, gave legitimacy to that Constitution.
Of course, the content of the new Constitution you create can be the same as the current Japanese Constitution.
However, the current Constitution must be made invalid first.
For many years, Japan has debated the amendment clause of Article 96 of the Constitution.
Although the occupying forces created the entire bill in less than ten days, Japan has debated the amendment clauses for years.
It is extremely ridiculous.
Why is it ridiculous?
Because it is a fraud, it is ridiculous because it does not make sense.
It is ridiculous because it does not make sense.
The political commentator Kenichi Takemura once said, "Common sense in the world is the opposite of common sense in Japan, and common sense in Japan is the opposite of common sense in the world."
Most foreigners nod in agreement when they hear this.
It is true that "common sense in Japan is the opposite of common sense in the world" since the war's end, but was this the case before the war?
Of course not.
The Meiji Constitution also aimed at this, so Japan's standards after the Meiji era were undoubtedly the world's standards.
However, if we take the bogus argument that the Constitution of Japan, which is the Basic Law of the Occupation Policy, is the actual Constitution, everything becomes strange.
In everything, "Japanese common sense is the world's insanity."
The preamble to the Constitution of Japan states, "The Japanese people, desiring peace for all time and deeply conscious of the high ideals controlling human relationship, have determined to preserve our security and existence, trusting in the justice and faith of the peace-loving peoples of the world" (underline added by Watanabe).
For example, when a small country allies with a large country, it may entrust its safety to that country, as Monaco entrusts its safety to France.
However, no country would be foolish enough to entrust its survival to another country.
Even if you read just this part, which says that we would entrust the lives of our citizens to another country, it is equivalent to saying, "This is not a constitution."
Furthermore, look at the countries around us.
The Soviet Union is a country that abducted hundreds of thousands of Japanese people even after the war ended and where tens of thousands of people starved or froze to death.
North Korea is a hereditary dictatorship, South Korea is a country that cannot even abide by the Japan-South Korea Basic Treaty, and China is a country that has slaughtered tens of millions of its citizens and continues to commit atrocities by invading Tibet and Uighur.
Even the United States ignored the Potsdam Declaration and decided that Japan had surrendered unconditionally.
Do you really want to entrust your safety and life to such a country?
There is no such constitution.
(Note 1) Vichy Regime: A government established in the central French city of Vichy in 1940 (Showa 15) by Marshal Pétain, the former deputy prime minister of the previous cabinet, after France was defeated in an attack by Nazi Germany.
Because of its strong German influence and pro-German stance, it provoked a civil war with the resistance forces, and in 1944, with the liberation of France by the Allied forces, the government was dissolved.
Those involved were punished.
2024/9/5 in Onomichi, Hiroshima
