E-mail:
Jack Balkin: jackbalkin at yahoo.com
Bruce Ackerman bruce.ackerman at yale.edu
Ian Ayres ian.ayres at yale.edu
Corey Brettschneider corey_brettschneider at brown.edu
Mary Dudziak mary.l.dudziak at emory.edu
Joey Fishkin joey.fishkin at gmail.com
Heather Gerken heather.gerken at yale.edu
Abbe Gluck abbe.gluck at yale.edu
Mark Graber mgraber at law.umaryland.edu
Stephen Griffin sgriffin at tulane.edu
Jonathan Hafetz jonathan.hafetz at shu.edu
Jeremy Kessler jkessler at law.columbia.edu
Andrew Koppelman akoppelman at law.northwestern.edu
Marty Lederman msl46 at law.georgetown.edu
Sanford Levinson slevinson at law.utexas.edu
David Luban david.luban at gmail.com
Gerard Magliocca gmaglioc at iupui.edu
Jason Mazzone mazzonej at illinois.edu
Linda McClain lmcclain at bu.edu
John Mikhail mikhail at law.georgetown.edu
Frank Pasquale pasquale.frank at gmail.com
Nate Persily npersily at gmail.com
Michael Stokes Paulsen michaelstokespaulsen at gmail.com
Deborah Pearlstein dpearlst at yu.edu
Rick Pildes rick.pildes at nyu.edu
David Pozen dpozen at law.columbia.edu
Richard Primus raprimus at umich.edu
K. Sabeel Rahmansabeel.rahman at brooklaw.edu
Alice Ristroph alice.ristroph at shu.edu
Neil Siegel siegel at law.duke.edu
David Super david.super at law.georgetown.edu
Brian Tamanaha btamanaha at wulaw.wustl.edu
Nelson Tebbe nelson.tebbe at brooklaw.edu
Mark Tushnet mtushnet at law.harvard.edu
Adam Winkler winkler at ucla.edu
Below The Radar: A Constitutional Revolution In Japan?
Guest Blogger
Bruce Ackerman
The recent decision by the Japanese parliament to pass a referendum law on the Constitution is an epochal moment in modern history. Japan’s Constitution has been frozen in time, marked with the trauma of capitulation. Drafted largely by two American military lawyers, it took the form of an amendment to the imperial constitution – with the Emperor submitting it to his legislature for rapid approval, without sustained discussion, in 1946. It has never been amended since, and the recent referendum law will begin a process through which the Japanese people might begin the process of taking ownership over their constitutional destiny.
The MacArthur Constitution, in form at least, adopted American principles of popular sovereignty-- providing a higher lawmaking track through which the People could legitimately revise their fundamental principles. But the text left it up to the Diet to fill in the crucial details, and the present government is off to a very bad start -- its referendum law violates fundamental principles of free speech and democratic accountability. For some obscure reason -- maybe the Wolfowitz melodrama at the World Bank -- the newspapers haven't reported on Japan's great lurch forward. So I have written a brief essay, with a Japanese colleague, in Foreign Policy, which you can read here. Posted
5:06 PM
by Guest Blogger [link]
Comments:
The question I have is why an amendment formula that requires a 2/3 vote in the national legislature followed by a referendum is so bad. I certainly agree that the social practices needed to sustain constitutionalism (e.g., that certain changes require supermajority consent) are important but it is not clear that the amendment formula should require that degree of mobilization before constitutional changes can occur. Article V requires a reasonably high level of mobilization before changes can be made and I think it has served our nation poorly by precluding change. Perhaps more importantly it has impoverished the constitutional imagination so that change is seen as unthinkable. The amendment formula adopted in Japan (leaving aside the restriction of freedom of speech) strikes me as a reasonable solution and certainly better than our own amendment formula. Requiring that amendments always elicit a high degree of mobilization will preclude needed constitutional changes while not facilitating the practices needed to sustain constitutionalism. Miguel Schor