There is no way we can do the constitution in an era without sovereignty.

The following is a continuation of the previous chapter.
Chapter 5-New Constitution that was 'Occupation Policy Basic Act'
'There is no way we can do the constitution in an era without sovereignty.'
If it is the occupation policy, notably the Purge (occupied Japan) decree, the most significant negative factor that characterizes the postwar era, the new constitution (Japanese Constitution) would generally regard as a decisive factor.
The new constitution treated as a symbol of Japan's new departure and peace.
In particular, Article 9 is considered to be sacred, and it has raised to the religious stage.
Japan's occupation of the Allied Forces began with the acceptance of the Potsdam Declaration.
In accepting the Potsdam Declaration, Japan is querying the Allied Forces to see if it retained the original character of the state.
Though in other words, it is a thing how to do His Majesty the Emperor.
At that time, the Allied side answered the Emperor 'subject to' the Allied Forces General Commander.
Upon hearing this, Japan interpreted it as 'not abolished by subjecting' and accepted the Potsdam Declaration.
The decision to accept the Potsdam Declaration is due to 'the Emperor's diplomatic power' in Article 13 of the Meiji Constitution that 'the emperor declares war and gives peace and concludes various treaties.'
However, the emperor was 'subject to' when it occupied, so it placed under the occupation army.
Therefore, naturally, Japan under the occupation did not have sovereignty.
The most obvious example is that the constitution is due to the triggering of sovereignty, but even after the new structure was issued, the death penalty was executed in Japan, not under the Japanese penal code.
It is a Tokyo trial.
There is no clear statement that Japan's new constitution is not the triggering of sovereignty.
It is impossible that there is another constitution above the constitution.
In other words, we have to start by understanding that the new constitution is not an ordinary one.
Japan's constitutional scholar says a lot of things, but I think that it is the most proper way of thinking about the constitution 'The constitution that is the actuation of sovereignty in the times without sovereignty can't make.'.
Well then, what on earth is the Constitution of Japan?
The Occupation Forces were scheduled to do the direct military occupation but were put under indirect control by the efforts of Foreign Minister Shigemitsu Mamoru.
There is an occupation army on the Japanese government, and it is a scheme that the occupation army governs Japan through the Japanese government.
The Constitution of Japan was the 'Occupation Policy Basic Law' for the occupying army to control Japanese rule conveniently in this scheme.
On the other hand, the constitution protection scholar of the present says that the Constitution of Japan has the Majesty of Emperor prefix attached to it.
The sentence that states that when the Emperor approves or promulgates a law, an ordinance, or an imperial decree, in the beginning letter that the judgment shall be issued and produced as the Emperor's words.
It said that it is supposed to have also been scrutinized by the Privy Council, which is also due to be discussed in the parliament.
However, it is better not to listen to what the constitutional scholar says, which teaches the constitution at university.
Because the constitution already exists, teaching constitutional law means interpreting the present structure and making a living.
If they say that the constitution 'is not a constitution,' they can not make a living.
The boss who said that the Japanese constitution, not the constitution, is the constitution in the first place is Mr. Toshiyoshi Miyazawa and Mr. Kisaburo Yokota, who were the Professor of Law, the University of Tokyo under the occupation.
From now on, it can say that it is a traitor-like constitutional scholar.
The disciplines have the seat of constitutional law given by a former teacher, and they can't say to it 'the constitution of Japan isn't a constitution' and so on.
Therefore, the opinion of the present, especially the constitutional scholar derived from the University of Tokyo, cannot use as a reference.
This manuscript continues.