A flyer from a local politician (Takita Kohtoku, a DPJ member of the Kanagawa Prefectural Assembly) – that was put in mail boxes as opposed to being passed out at the train station – calls for amending the Constitution. There are other things called for as well, but the Constitution if the first one and the most important. So here is the full text of the part on the Constitution (and my very rough translation in quotation marks to differentiate it from my comments):
1．今こそ憲法改正を
国で憲法改正の動きがあり、私はこれに賛成し、推し進めるためにも、憲法改正の手続き条項である96条の改正を求める意見書を提出すべきと考えております。
民主党は、憲法改正に消極的であるといった声をよく聞きますが、私たち県議団の中で現行憲法を金科玉条のように祟め、一言一句変えてはならないという議員は皆無で、むしろ憲法改正を「当然と考える」議員が大多数を占めます。世界的に見ても第二次世界大戦後から2010年までにアメリカが6回、フランスが27回、ドイツが57回、憲法を改正しています。現行憲法が制定された1946年当時とは、時代の価値観や人々を取りまく社会情勢も異なることから改正は、至極当然であるといえます。
まずは「改正へのハードルの高い」と多くの方から指摘される96条（衆参両議院のそれぞれ3分の2の多数で発議）を見直す必要があります。環境を整えた上で、内容についての国民的議論を行い、見直すべきと判断された条項があれば、適時改正すればよいと考えます。
以上の点から、県政のバカラも憲法改正の声を上げてまいります。
Translation:
“1. Now is the time to amend the Constitution
“There are moves afoot to amend the Constitution. I think this is a good idea, and I think we should start by amending Article 96 which sets out the procedures for amending the Constitution.
The arteries related to the reproductive organs of men get rid of their impotence or buy cipla tadalafil erectile dusfunction problem. prescription de viagra canada http://raindogscine.com/?attachment_id=561 One can simply get over the issue if they consume them accidentally. Diet Therapy levitra online no prescription for uterine fibroid Uterine fibroid is a common disorder among males in India. This buy tadalafil canada means man needs to be sexually stimulated for this medicine to work well. “People seem to think the DPJ is negative on amending the Constitution, but there are very few DPJ members of the Kanagawa Prefectural Council who think the Constitution is some kind of sacred text to be enshrined on high and not a word should be changed. Most of us think we should naturally consider amending it. Looking at the rest of the world, the U.S. has amended its Constitution six times between the end of World War II and 2010, France 27 times, and Germany 57 times. The current Japanese Constitution was promulgated in 1946. Times have changed since then, and so have our values. It is only natural the Constitution should change too.
“The first step is to rethink Article 96, which many people have said imposes excessively difficult procedural hurdles (2/3 approval of both Houses). Once we get that done, we can engage in a national dialogue about what else, if anything, needs to be changed. And if there are things that should be changed, we can change them. This is my position, and the position I want the prefecture to convey to the national government.”
Basically, he is saying, “I don’t want to talk about the specifics because none of these have the necessary support. Instead, I want to lower the bar so a simple majority can amend the Constitution. I want to make amending the Constitution just as easy as passing an ordinary law. After all, everybody else is doing it. Why not us?
But what are the actual requirements now? And how do these compare to the requirements for amending the Consitution in the countries he cites? (And note that he only cites countries that he assumes people admire and does not cite, for example, Cambodia, Egypt, Russia, or other countries where the Constitutional amendment process has had more problematic results.)
In the U.S., The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures. A proposed amendment becomes part of the Constitution as soon as it is ratified by three-fourths of the States. (wording from the U.S. Office of the Federal Register)
In France, a government or a Member’s bill to amend the Constitution shall be passed by the two assemblies in identical terms. The amendment shall have effect after approval by referendum. However, a government bill to amend the Constitution shall not be submitted to referendum where the President of the Republic decides to submit it to Parliament convened in Congress; the government bill to amend the Constitution shall then be approved only if it is adopted by a three-fifths majority of the votes cast. The Bureau of the Congress shall be that of the National Assembly. (wording from ThisNation.com’s translation)
In Germany, the Basic Law (i.e., the Constitution) can be amended only by a law which expressly amends or supplements the text thereof. . . . Such a law requires the affirmative vote of two thirds of the members of the Bundestag and two-thirds of the votes of the Bundesrat. An amendment of this Basic Law affecting the division of the Federation into Laender, the participation in principle of the Laender in legislation, or the basic principles laid down in Articles 1 and 20 (on protection of human dignity) and 20 (on basic principles of state order and the right to resist), is inadmissible. (wording from http://www.constitution.org)
The fact that the U.S. and Germany have been able to amend their Constitutions despite procedural requirements just as demanding as the ones he says are unreasonably difficult for Japan is hardly an argument for making it easier in Japan. Rather, it is support for the idea that the main barrier to Constitutional amendment in Japan is that the people who want to amend the Constitution have yet to come up with any amendments that have broad popular support. Whenever they talk about substance, the flaws are apparent and the discussion gets bogged down. So now they want to say “Let’s talk about substance later. For now, let’s just make it so easy that the amendments can be railroaded through, whatever they are.”