安保法案「違憲」と叫ぶ面々中国にとっては最高の援護に Those Asserting ...

【ニッポンの新常識】　安保法案「違憲」と叫ぶ面々　中国にとっては最高の援護に
http://www.zakzak.co.jp/society/domestic/news/20150808/dms1508081000004-n1.htm

　Common Knowledge Revisited (27)　Those Asserting Unconstitutionality of National Security Bills Provide Perfect Cover for PRC

　Many Japanese constitutional scholars say that the National Defense Bills violate Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution and are therefore unconstitutional. They also assert that that the revised interpretation of the Constitution adopted by the Shinzo Abe cabinet violates the principles of constitutionalism.

　Article 9, imposed as a penalty by GHQ (General Headquarters of the Supreme Commander of the Allied Powers), is hard to deal with, so it is instructive to look at how it was handled by our predecessors.

　In 1946, then Prime Minister Shigeru Yoshida testified in the Diet that “Under Article 9 of the Constitution, Japan has relinquished both the right to maintain defense forces and to wage a war of defense.” This is an extremely straight interpretation of the text, and it definitely was the intention of Article 9 when the new constitution was adopted.

　It isn’t reported widely in the media so many people may not be aware that a large portion of constitutional scholars in Japan hold the view that the existence of the self-defense forces itself is unconstitutional. From the outset, it is an exercise in futility to inquire of their opinion on the constitutionality of the National Defense Bills.

　Incidentally, in reply to Yoshida’s diet testimony, the Communist Party argued that “Japan has not relinquished the right to wage defensive war, and the Constitution should be interpreted as only having relinquished wars of aggression,” an uncharacteristically sound argument. History takes some interesting turns!

　In 1950 at the outbreak of the Korean War, Prime Minister Yoshida reversed his original constitutional interpretation to say that Article 9 does not relinquish the right of self-defense, and began preparations for the self-defense forces. Because Japan was still under occupation, it can be assumed that this was also in accordance with the wishes of GHQ.

　Presently, the majority opinion of those opposed to the Abe National Defense Bills is that the self-defense forces are constitutional but collective self-defense is unconstitutional. In other words they have accepted the reinterpretation of 1950. The fact that they accept a historical change in constitutional interpretation but not this change is a clear double standard.

　In the first place, it is highly probable that those who immediately cry “unconstitutional!” do not understand the meaning of constitutionalism.

　In Great Britain, the birthplace of constitutionalism, no written constitution exists. The unwritten “common law” constitutes the constitution of Great Britain. Written statutory law is left behind in the march of history, so periodic reinterpretation in light of current conditions is necessary.

　Japanese should be more concerned with what law is necessary for national defense than being held captive to the text of Article 9.

　The People’s Republic of China (PRC) makes no effort to hide its territorial designs on the South China Sea or the East China Sea, including Okinawa. For the PRC to take control of the sea lanes is a matter of life or death for Japan.

　Some assert that Japan will become entangled in a U.S. war, but the truth is exactly opposite. Japan should settle the imminent dangers it faces without relying on the United States.

　It is supremely ironic that those Japanese who cry “unconstitutional!” or “a violation of constitutionalism!” are providing covering fire for the PRC, a country located at the extreme fringe on the spectrum of constitutionalism.

在庫復活！

まだＧＨＱの洗脳に縛られている日本人/PHP研究所