Talk:Constitution of Japan

message: And why isn't this mentioned anywhere in the article? It is clearly a political client/puppet regime.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.217.244.143 (talk) 10:26, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The constitution doesn't give the US any extraordinary powers over Japan, and indeed the Japanese could amend or replace the constitution if they wanted to. They merely choose not to because it's worked pretty well.65.7.0.129 (talk) 06:17, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

text: According to the book I'm reading, a lot of the Japanese constitution actually derives from a former Japanese effort. Apparently, it's not quite the American diktat it's often thought to be. --YeOldeGentleman (talk) 19:41, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does this document not prove that Japan is a US puppet state? 

message: Why is there a section of this article (apparently) in Japanese? (This being, of course, the English-language Wikipedia.) If it is necessary, it should be appropriately placed in context for non-Japanese readers, e.g. "The following text X, Y and Z." As it is, being an English-language computer user with no Japanese language support installed on his computer, all I see is an irregular series of ? characters. --Dhartung | Talk 03:01, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  In Japanese? 

message: Don't. Article 9 is a complex topic all in it self and Wikipedia does well to have a separated article for it. -- Mkill 18:06, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge in of Article 9 Lemma 

message: Both Supreme court and lower courts have ruled that discrimination against foreign nationals is an article 14 (equality under the law) issue. 
Public bathing facility ruling of Sapporo District Court (2002.11.11)
National election rights(Supreme Court H5.2.26)
Local election rights(Supreme Court 2000.6.27)
All ruling applies article 14 (indirectly with the Bathing facility case) to foreign nationals. 
Furthermore, the 1994.2.28 ruling states, that legislation, granting permanent foreign residents local election rights, would not violate article 15, although article 15 does not guarantee it as a constitutional right.
The Public bathing facility ruling, through the interpretation of Civil code article 709 'illegal acts'、state that refusing a foreigner to enter a public bathing facility is against Article 14 and international human rights B treaty article 26, and constitute an 'illegal act'.
The point being, yes, there is no legislation specifically making discrimination against foreigners an offence, but, no, discrimination against foreigners are illegal, and will result in civil compensation.(in this case US$29,000)
As far as I know, the majority interpretation and the supreme court, does grant the right of equality to foreigners. 
Social benefits however, are a different matter.
Fortifiedchicken 03:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article 14 does apply to foreign nationals 

message: As of this date, the only court ruling that has ruled on the constitutionality of the Self-Defence Force is a district court ruling (Naganuma case, Sapporo District court 1974.9.7). It ruled that the SDF is a force prohibited by article 9 paragraph 2, and is unconstitutional.
The Supreme court has never ruled on the constitutionality of the SDF.
So, what court ruling states that Japan can raise an army (a force with greater ability than SDF), which is a clear violation of article 9 paragraph 2?
There is a ruling that suggests that Japan has the right to defend it's country, a prerequisite to possessing any kind of force (Sunagawa Supreme Court 1960.12.16), but that's it.
I strongly recommend deleting the portion that suggests an existence of a court ruling, unless the writer can name the case and date of the ruling.
Supreme Court of Japan Home Page with Selected Judgments in English
Fortifiedchicken 03:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What court ruled that Japan can raise an army? 

message: Article 38 bans conviction solely based on confessions.
Article 319 paragraph 2 of the Criminal Procedure law states "A defendant cannot be found guilty, if the only evidence against him is a confession before the court or otherwise". 
With corroborating evidence for the confession, however, a conviction would not violate article 38-3 of the constitution.(Check Nerima Case 1959.5.28)
--Fortifiedchicken 08:24, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article 38 Confession 

message: In response to my update tag, it was requested that I post a clarification here.  No, I hadn't heard anything specific, but the section on the 2005 proposal left me wanting to hear the rest of the story. Did this fizzle or is it moving forward?  It seems like this was added in reaction to events in the news, but it needs to be put in better historical perspective. -- Beland 01:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Amendment update 

message: This part of the Adoption section 
Under Article 73 the new 
has been overlayed by the Imperial Signature and Seal picture.  
I don't know how to fix it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.118.60.172 (talk) 15:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see this overlay. I'm using Firefox 2.0.0.3 on Mac OS X 10.3.9.  What browser are you using?  Do you see the same problem as you make your browser window larger or smaller? Also, I changed the section heading above from "Adoption" to "Picture overlaps text in Adoption section" --Jdlh  | Talk 19:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture overlaps text in Adoption section 

message: This section has been in desparate need of updating for almost a year, and apparently no-one interested in tending to it, so I just went ahead and did it, relying on the reischauer institute , the BBC and the Japan Times. It still needs a lot of work, and you're all welcome to it, but think I got the main points in and arranged the section according to a timeline. This is a hot issue in Japanese politics and could use constant updating, more contextualization, and details (e.g. on the main players in the debate). Also, there are structural issues- the 'early debates' section needs to be somehow connected to this section. But I'm probably not the right person for that. Bine maya 14:29, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  june 2007 updates to amendments and revision section

message: There have been some edits to the "Human rights guarantees in practice" section.  This section started of as a lot of assertions claiming — without Wikipedia:Verifiability — how actual Japanese practice is bad human rights and goes against what the Constitution says.  Over time some edits have reversed the meaning of the claims. Parts of the article now say  — again, without Wikipedia:Verifiability — that Japanese practice does follow the Constitution. For instance, at 19:48, April 9, 2005, User:Iota added one sentence which read "defendants are routinely convicted solely on the basis of a signed confession" (with no citation). Then at 00:54, May 25, 2006, User:Fortifiedchicken changed it to read "defendants are routinely convicted on the basis of a signed confession with corroborating evidence" (still with no citation). Then  at 15:54, March 31, 2008 User:Vapour correctly pointed the logical error in Fortifiedchicken's wording, but changed the meaning of the sentence yet again (still with no citation).  This is silly.  The phrase has been in Wikipedia for years, violating the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy the whole time, so I'm deleting it.  It would be great to add it back in, but only if there are Wikipedia:Reliable sources to back it up. --Jdlh  | Talk 22:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's all very well, but the important policy here is Wikipedia:Verifiability. If the statements can be verified in a Wikipedia:Reliable source they stay. If not, they (eventually) go. If whinging Westerners can get their whinging published in a reliable source, an editor is justified in adding them to Wikipedia. --Jdlh  | Talk 19:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Human rights guarantees in practice", unverifiable statements 

message: I noticed that the way the Occupation was set up gave Americans an opportunity to make Japan's political system more like their own, perhaps in the belief that it would help people (or maybe that's because that's what Americans considered to be a good political system). So church and state were separated, more people given the vote, Japan became less monarchial (the monarch became more of a mascot for the country), and various other Americanizations were implemented... I suppose that if Japan had been partitioned as originally intended, the political differences would have been very interesting. For starters, there'd be at least a North Japan and a South Japan when all was said and done, and perhaps three or four "Japans" (depending on whether the Republic of China and/or the People's Republic were willing to play along). Furthermore, the PRC/ROC tensions would result in some Cold War drama, in addition to the Soviet/Western tensions. There might have even been a Japanese War along the lines of the Korean one. Can you imagine a Stalinist skyline gracing Sapporo? 204.52.215.107 (talk) 04:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: America's influence on the Constitution of Japan

message: It is probably a problem of interpretation and then translation.(not purely translation.)
The original (Japanese) text of the Article 98 (2) doesn't say ratified international treaties be immediately domestic law or be treated as such, more accurately it cannot be read that way. It is more of a very very strong recommendation but not a mandate. The expression of the text doesn't make it mandatory. Having said that, I am not a constitutional scholar, just having the native command of the language.
What I believe is this is one of the interpretation (not the verbal translation, not to be confused) of the expression (nuance). I have come across, so many times, misinterpretations or mistranslations even by very much experienced translators(none-native in Japanese though), which is where the text can be interpreted in two or more ways and some of which the natives never, ever dream of.
If anyone reading the original text, I would like your comments. 
While at it, in that cute diagram, it says 'appointment' of the Prime Minister and Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, it is more like 'assent' just a rubber stamp. It's not like the President appoints the Supreme Court Justice and the Senate confirms it. In fact, the Emperor has not power to choose or alter the "appointment".  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.69.236.159 (talk) 14:18, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other provisions / International Law 

message: Hi, I'm doing research on the Japanese Constitution for a college course and I found that sections of this article are almost entirely plagiarized from the book Theory of the World Constitution by Dreek Oberoi. Specifically the section "Drafting Process" which plagiarizes the phrasing "the initial post-surrender measures taken by Douglas MacArthur, the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers (SCAP), suggest that neither he nor his superiors in Washington intended to impose a new political system on Japan unilaterally. Instead, they wished to encourage Japan's new leaders to initiate democratic reforms on their own. But by early 1946, MacArthur's staff and Japanese officials were at odds over the most fundamental issue, the writing of a new constitution" comes from page 253 of that book. I don't know how to edit it out properly without leaving a huge hole in the article, if I get time when I finish my research I will change it myself if needed. The book is available on ebrary to anyone with database access. Thanks. Ninja337 (talk) 02:34, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Plagiarism

message: This site http://www.ndl.go.jp/constitution/e/outline/03outline.html clearly states that MaxArthur's men (and women) had started their own draft BEFORE they got the one from the Japanese goverment, so they did it in two weeks, not one. 134.93.77.131 (talk) 10:44, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong number of weeks for MacArthurs Draft 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Constitution of Japan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130704235529/http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~rijs/crrp/index.html to http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~rijs/crrp/index.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121002140949/http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~rijs/crrp/web_archive/ngos.html to http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~rijs/crrp/web_archive/ngos.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130705003630/http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~rijs/crrp/web_archive/political_parties.html to http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~rijs/crrp/web_archive/political_parties.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121002141112/http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~rijs/crrp/web_archive/labor.html to http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~rijs/crrp/web_archive/labor.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121002141117/http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~rijs/crrp/web_archive/index.html to http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~rijs/crrp/web_archive/index.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:55, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: All archived versions were redirects to Harvard University's home page, therefore I've replace all 5 with correct archived pages. Thank you, {{u|Cyberbot II]]. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:14, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Constitution of Japan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060207081544/http://www.jimin.jp:80/jimin/shin_kenpou/shiryou/pdf/051122_a.pdf to http://www.jimin.jp/jimin/shin_kenpou/shiryou/pdf/051122_a.pdf
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060110024242/http://www.jimin.jp:80/jimin/shin_kenpou/ to http://www.jimin.jp/jimin/shin_kenpou/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:09, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Confirmed as correct x 2. Thanks, Cyberbot II. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:05, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Constitution of Japan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20070417a2.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150622033307/http://www.ndl.go.jp/constitution/e/index.html to http://www.ndl.go.jp/Constitution/e/index.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:26, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Japan is not officially or constitutionally a monarchy since 1945/1952, because unlike actual monarchies, the 1947 japanese constitution doesn't in any way define the "state of Japan"　(日本国) as being a monarchy, or having a monarch, sovereign, or indeed any head of state, while also explicitly defining the people as sovereign and the prime minister as the chief executive. This is especially important because the previous constitution explicitly defined the country as a monarchy as the tennou as a sovereign and supreme authority. The tennou after 1945 is best understood as a hereditary religious figure, a chief priest if you will, rather than a monarch.
Furthermore, in Japan, there is generally an agreement that the definition of the tennou as only a "symbol" (象徴) also defines them as NOT a monarch　(君主) or head of state/sovereign　(元首). Many japanese constitutional experts consider Japan to not have a formal head of state. Countries don't need a formal head of state, for that matter.
Let's look at *actual* constitutional monarchies:
Kingdom of Denmark
"The form of government shall be that of a constitutional monarchy. The Royal Power shall be inherited by  men and women in accordance with the provisions of the Succession to the Throne Act, 27th March, 1953."
"The legislative power shall be vested in the King and the Folketing conjointly. The executive power shall  be vested in the King. The judicial power shall be vested in the courts of justice."
"Subject to the limitations laid down in this Constitution Act the King shall have the supreme authority  in all the affairs of the Realm, and he shall exercise such supreme authority through the Ministers."
"The King shall not be answerable for his actions; his person shall be sacrosanct. The Ministers shall be  responsible for the conduct of the government; their responsibility shall be determined by Statute."
Kingdom of Norway
"The Kingdom of Norway is a free, independent, indivisible and inalienable Realm. Its form of government is a limited and hereditary monarchy."
"The Executive Power is vested in the King, or in the Queen if she has succeeded to the Crown pursuant to the provisions of Article 6 or Article 7 or Article 48 of this Constitution. When the Executive Power is thus vested in the Queen, she has all the rights and obligations which pursuant to this Constitution and the Law of the Land are possessed by the King."
"The King's person is sacred; he cannot be censured or accused. The responsibility rests with his Council."
Kingdom of Sweden
"The King or Queen who occupies the throne of Sweden in accordance with the Act of Succession shall be the Head of State.
"The King or Queen who is Head of State cannot be prosecuted for his or her actions. Nor can a Regent be prosecuted for his or her actions as Head of State."
Kingdom of the Netherlands
"The King shall be President of the Council of State. The heir presumptive shall be legally entitled to have a seat on the Council on attaining the age of eighteen. Other members of the Royal House may be granted a seat on the Council by or in accordance with an Act of Parliament."
"The members of the Council shall be appointed for life by Royal Decree."
"A Bill shall become an Act of Parliament once it has been passed by the States General and ratified by
the King."
"The Government shall comprise the King and the Ministers."
"The Ministers, and not the King, shall be responsible for acts of government."
"State Secretaries may be appointed and dismissed by Royal Decree."
Kingdom of Belgium
"The federal legislative power is exercised jointly by the King, the House of Representatives and the Senate."
"The federal executive power, as regulated by the Constitution, belongs to the King."
"The King has the right to convene the Houses to an extraordinary meeting."
"The King can adjourn the Houses. However, the adjournment cannot be for longer than one month, nor can it be repeated in the same session without the consent of the Houses."
Kingdom of Spain
"The political form of the Spanish State is the Parliamentary Monarchy."
"The King is the Head of State, the symbol of its unity and permanence. He arbitrates and moderates the regular functioning of the institutions, assumes the highest representation of the Spanish State in international relations, especially with the nations of its historical community, and exercises the  functions expressly conferred on him by the Constitutionand the laws."
"The person of the King is inviolable and shall not be held accountable. His acts shall always be countersigned in the manner established in section 64. Without such countersignature they shall not be valid, except as provided under section 65(2)."
"The King freely appoints and dismisses civil and military members of his Household"
62.248.181.187 (talk) 11:50, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Japan is a constitutional monarchy. GoodDay (talk) 15:27, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  At most de facto, not formally. 62.248.181.187 (talk) 15:29, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: So the emperor is not a monarch? GoodDay (talk) 21:04, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  I wonder if you have bothered to read what I wrote. Indeed they are not a 君主 or 元首 by the constitution but only a 象徴 ("symbol") under the people's sovereignty and without even nominal executive, legislative, or judicial indepedent authority. 62.248.181.187 (talk) 21:18, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Made this discussion into an Rfc, so to attract more input from others. GoodDay (talk) 21:29, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

text: Now do the UK! Hint: :Constitution of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is not contained in a single code. - Ryk72 talk 13:49, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  The existing legal and constitutional documents, the state's official name, and various other things make it quite clear that the United Kingdom is, in fact, a Kingdom, and that there is a de jure monarch as its head of state. The fact that there is no "fully written constitution" does not mean the UK monarchy is somehow unofficial. Mnd5trm (talk) 01:52, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

text: I question your solutions. GoodDay (talk) 21:59, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

text: In view of the last few comments, and the fact that the opening statement is neither neutral nor brief (see WP:RFCBRIEF) (it is far too long for Legobot to handle, meaning that it does not show correctly at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Politics, government, and law), I have deactivated this RfC. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:49, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Japan is not formally a monarchy, and this article should inform the reader properly about that fact 

message: * In the interests of moving forward with the best sources, and given that both houses of the Diet undertook extensive (5 year plus) research into the nature of the Constitution (2000-), could we review & consider the reports coming out of that research? English versions are available - House of Representatives, House of Councillors (summary). - Ryk72 talk 07:22, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The reports mostly concluded that that "opinion was divided". Looking at the sessions, it seems that the majority did not view the tennou as currently being a head of state. For example, in this meeting, most of the 16 participants either state or imply that they do not think the tennou is currently a head of state, while only 1 stated and 3 partly implied the opposite. Here is a meeting where an expert (Professor Emeritus of the Constitution) was consulted on the specific topic. The reports emphasize ambiguity and a division of opinion, and do not support the idea that the constitution defines a head of state or the form of government as a monarchy, and can therefore be considered to be in clearly greater agreement with B than with A. In any case, version/option A with its implication of unambiguity does not appropriately describe the situation. Mnd5trm (talk) 14:29, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

text: I recommend reading the article 日本の元首 ("Head of state of Japan") which covers the topic in detail. The research commissions on the constitution are prominently featured, and the various opinions and theories presented. Mnd5trm (talk) 15:00, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diet Reports on Constitution 

message: I propose splitting the Amendments and revisions section of this page to a new page titled Constitutional reform in Japan, this has been requested multiple times in Wikiproject Japan and with the controversies surrounding it, I believe it deserves its own page. If you think otherwise, please reply and we can have a conversation to sort it out. Anime King 🎌 (💬)  12:01, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Splitting Amendments and revisions to new article