The legislation of the referendum law is unconstitutional.

The referendum law has a variety of loopholes. They have been intentionally created, for sure.
Until just before the enactment of the law, I could not read the full text of the bill. Still now, I can not.
I'm Japanese. I have been concerned about the constitutional revision process. I carefully read newspapers, watched TV news and political talk shows and checked related web sites. But I don't know the full text. Finding its full text is almost impossible not only in English but also in Japanese.
This time again I have to rely on English information. But the finding is amazing.
The biggest problem is not only breach of the constitution but the situation in which the mass media neatly dance around on the issue and most people do not know what is going on.
Strangely enough and as usual, bizarre affairs suddenly get out into the open one after another. They include parenticide, child killing, bizarre rape and so on.
When the government needs outstanding distraction, the date is set in accordance with internationally important events. This time, these events were coming French president and going British prime minister.
As you know, unconstitutional legislation in Japan will not only harm Japanese people but also foreigners as it did in the past.
I would like all of you to read my posting carefully. I'm not a native English speaker. My English is often wrong. But I think you can understand my opinion to some extent.
I would like to post some concrete examples one by one later.

Only a quarter of people and a quarter of legislators are enough

The biggest question concerns the fact that the law fails to mandate a minimum turnout rate for a referendum to be considered valid. The law merely states that a revision will become effective if it is favored by a majority of valid votes in a referendum. Thus if turnout for a referendum is 50 percent, theoretically a 25 percent vote would be enough to revise the nation's basic law. A situation in which a relatively small number of people decides the shape of the nation's supreme law would run counter to the constitutional principle that sovereign power resides with the people.
--
Article 96 of the Constitution(ﾂ?ｦ1) stipulates that amendments to the Constitution shall be initiated through a concurring vote of two-third or more of all the members of each House of the Diet. Under the new law, the minimum number of lawmakers in each House necessary for submitting a bill for a constitutional revision(ﾂ?ｦ2) is 100 in the Lower House and 50 in the Upper House.
--
<frome the Japantimes>
------------------
(ﾂ?ｦ1) Article 96:
Amendments to this Constitution shall be initiated by the Diet, through a concurring vote of two-thirds or more of all the members of each House and shall thereupon be submitted to the people for ratification, which shall require the affirmative vote of a majority of all votes cast thereon, at a special referendum or at such election as the Diet shall specify. 2) Amendments when so ratified shall immediately be promulgated by the Emperor in the name of the people, as an integral part of this Constitution.
-------------------
(ﾂ?ｦ2)
Lower House: Of 480 members, 100 members means 20.8 per cent.
Upper House: Of 242 members, 50 members means 20.6 per cent.
--
The government has frequently changed the number of both houses for the past 20 years. Nowadays people are confused about the numbers and they don't know what percentage the figures such as 100 and 50 really represent in each house.
--
Under the Article 96 of the Constitution,
--
Lower House: Of 480 members, two-thirds means 320 members.
Upper House: Of 242 members, two-thirds means 162 members.
--
<from wikipedia>

I don't know the relations between the constitution in Japan and Mr Blair or Mr Sarkozy, but I am sure I will throw a stone when a ticket of Tokyo Metro turns to be as expensive as in London.
Anyways, keep posting.

cherry_cherry said:

The biggest question concerns the fact that the law fails to mandate a minimum turnout rate for a referendum to be considered valid. The law merely states that a revision will become effective if it is favored by a majority of valid votes in a referendum. Thus if turnout for a referendum is 50 percent, theoretically a 25 percent vote would be enough to revise the nation's basic law. A situation in which a relatively small number of people decides the shape of the nation's supreme law would run counter to the constitutional principle that sovereign power resides with the people.

Click to expand...

The power rests with the people. The choice of if, when and how to exercise those rights is the only basis on which all other freedoms are absolutely guaranteed.

The Japanese government itself refused.

The Japanese government itself refused to hold a national referendum on its Constitution in the past.
In 1945, the Allied Powers told the government to review the Constitution to decide within two years whether any revision was needed and, if necessary, hold a national referendum to change it.
In 1947, then Prime Minister Shigeru Yoshida told the Diet that the government had no intention of revising the Constitution, striking a constitutional referendum off the political agenda.
Since then, however, some Japanese major politicians, including the Tokyo Governor Ishihara and some prime ministers, have invariably argued that the Allied Powers created the constitution and forced Japan to accept it and that it is invalid.
It is a fallacy.
----
The next article is from Asahi.com. As this site disappears in a week, I dare to copy the whole text below.
---
EDITORIAL: Referendum law flawed
05/14/2007
An Upper House special committee on Friday passed a controversial bill to create a system for national referendums on constitutional amendments. The bill is set to become law with the expected approval by the Upper House in a plenary session Monday. Many Japanese must feel puzzled at the fact that the legal procedures for rewriting the Constitution have been established in such a hasty manner.
The nation certainly needs legislation for constitutional referendums. Unfortunately, efforts to inform the public about the bill or related issues have been anything but sufficient.
Sixty years ago, in fact, debate arose about a national referendum on the Constitution.
On March 30, 1947, just before the Constitution was put into effect, the Page 1 headline of The Asahi Shimbun said, "New Constitution to be Reviewed: National Referendum Mulled."
The report said the Allied Powers told the government that it could review the Constitution to decide within two years whether any revision was needed and, if necessary, hold a national referendum to change it.
The aim was to ensure that the postwar Constitution was based on the free will of the people, according to the report.
The proposal was discussed widely in the public and private sectors from various viewpoints. Two years later, however, then Prime Minister Shigeru Yoshida told the Diet that the government had no intention of revising the Constitution, striking a constitutional referendum off the political agenda. In the ensuing years, the Constitution became widely accepted among the people.
A constitutional referendum is held to allow the people, where sovereign power resides, to decide on any proposal to amend the Constitution. It is an important procedure because it is the way to legitimize a constitutional amendment. The rules for constitutional referendums should, therefore, be based on the broadest possible consensus among the people--as should any change to the Constitution.
In a regrettable abuse of its parliamentary majority, however, the ruling coalition of the Liberal Democratic Party and New Komeito rammed the referendum bill through the Upper House committee Friday, just as it did earlier in the Lower House.
The blame for this unfortunate situation rests with Prime Minister Shinzo Abe. In his determination to make constitutional revision the main plank of his campaign for the Upper House election in July, Abe has politicized the debate on referendum legislation.
The formulation of the referendum rules should not have been linked to a specific political position on constitutional change. The debate should have been focused on how to ensure that the results of these referendums accurately reflect the people's will. But Abe's decision to make the issue of constitutional changes a key component of his political strategy has caused, not surprisingly, the opposition to be inflexible on the debate.
Abe's political calculation seems to be that the enactment of a law for constitutional referendums, after 60 years of neglect, will be a major political achievement bearing his fingerprints, which should leave a strong impression on voters before the Upper House poll.
Minshuto (Democratic Party of Japan), for its part, is apparently maneuvering to use Abe's political exploitation of the bill as ammunition for its attacks against him and his ruling coalition during the election campaign.
After the Lower House passed the bill, we argued it should be killed in the Upper House. Many unsolved issues remain with this important piece of legislation concerning the Constitution, including whether to set a minimum turnout requirement for the validity of a referendum.
It is wrong to prematurely terminate debate on these issues based on the political consideration of elections and other matters.
The ruling coalition's move to rush the bill through the Diet will harden the opposition camp's attitude and make it politically harder to promote constitutional amendments.
It is ironic that the constitutional referendum law, to be enacted after six decades of neglect, diminishes the chances of amending the Constitution.
--The Asahi Shimbun, May 12(IHT/Asahi: May 14,2007)

Elizabeth said:

The power rests with the people. The choice of if, when and how to exercise those rights is the only basis on which all other freedoms are absolutely guaranteed.

Click to expand...

Yes and it would seem that despite the elected representatives needed for a constitutional amendment now being less, the whole thing still gets put to the people in a vote. If the new process was enacted via the proper revision guidelines in the original constitution (2/3s of both the upper and lower houses ratified it) then it wasn't unconstitutional.

It is troubling however when prime ministers toy with the idea of constitutional amendment not based on the needs of the people but based on the need to politically manoeuvre and leave a 'fingerprint' on society. It's also troubling that so little of the popular vote is needed for a referendum. More responsibility rests with the people now as voter turn-out would play a key role. The media could definitely influence this process, so its tough to say whether this is more or less power for the people. Ultimately I think its less because it leaves the possibility of a minority influence right from the legislature through to the people, with no checks or balances.

Tell me the reason why the referendum law is unconstitutional.

You may say the affirmative vote of a majority of all votes, not all voters, is the problem.
What's wrong with it? All we can do is just to go to vote.

You may say that low voter turnout due to the abstention of indifferent voters is a problem. But do we have to take care of the people who abondon their right? If they will become a terrorist like the students in the 60' or 70', I agree that it may cause a problem.
But generally speaking, the loud activist saying "kenpo! Article 9!", goes to vote after seeing the results of JCP (Japan Communist party) or SDPJ (former Socialist party).
We don't forget the past in WWII, but we must not forget the one that far-left female terrorists were killed by their comrades just because she wore a ring or did her hair, either.

I don't care about a gothloli maid terrorist as long as she does not hurt anyone, though I've never seen such a cute activist.