WI: Article 96 of Japanese Constitution Only Requires a Majority for Amendments

IOTL a 2/3 vote of the Japanese Diet is required to put forth a constitutional amendment, which must then be approved by a referendum. As a result, no changes to the Constitution have been made since its adoption in 1947.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_96_of_the_Japanese_Constitution

What if only a majority is required to put approve a constitutional change for a referendum vote? Would Article 9 be scrapped at some point? What other amendments might get added to the Constitution?
 
Making it too easy to amend a constitution is a bad thing. If it is meant to be more than 'law' (which passes with simple majorities), you need a much tougher standard for amendments.

Secondly, the US darned well wanted Article 9 enshrined solidly. I don't think any constitution would have been allowed that didn't have that Article, at least, firewalled.

Thirdly, 2/3 in the Diet and a referendum is 'easy'. The US requires 2/3 in Congress and then 3/4 of states. Despite that much tougher requirement, there have been multiple amendments over the centuries. What it DOES do is avoid frivolous amendments.

Let me give an example. Minnesota only requires a majority in the legislatures, and a majority of voters voting.
https://www.leg.state.mn.us/lrl/mngov/constitutionalamendments
Look at the list of amendments there, and tell me with a straight face that those belong in a constitution, rather than in the body of regular legislation.


No. I think if you want to discuss Amendments in Japan, the best way is to get people to want them. It is, after all, not that hard, relatively.
A Minnesota-like majority/majority like you propose might give you amendments like 'Sake is the National Drink of Japan'.
 
Most of what you wrote is right on, but this is flat out wrong. The US has completely undermined the intent of the pacifists in regards to Art. 9.

But that was later. In 1947, they did not want it--or the rest of the Constitution--to be easy to amend.
 
But that was later. In 1947, they did not want it--or the rest of the Constitution--to be easy to amend.
You miss the point. The US was (relatively) ambivalent, and actually wanted something more in line with what eventually de facto forced in Japan.
 
The point is that they did not want the Constitution to be easy to amend. If they had reservations about Article 9, "interpretation" would be a preferable way of getting Japan to rearm than throwing the whole Constitution up for grabs.
 
I favor a system where you usually get straightforward legislation, and thus pretty clear feedback, yeah or nay, is it working.
 
I think if we look at the history of the 20th century and how countries did post-colonization,

I think countries which went with presidential systems had a higher percentage of coups,

whereas countries which went with the parliamentary form of democracy tended to do better.

Although I'd like some solid studies on this, where we're talking about what we're basing the statistics on.
 
I think if we look at the history of the 20th century and how countries did post-colonization,

I think countries which went with presidential systems had a higher percentage of coups,

whereas countries which went with the parliamentary form of democracy tended to do better.

Although I'd like some solid studies on this, where we're talking about what we're basing the statistics on.
???
What's this got to do with how one amends the constitution?
 
While this is an interesting discussion, I'd prefer to talk about what 20th Century Japan would look like with an easier-to-amend constitution, rather than the merits of it.
 
Actually, during the cold war, I think the U.S. would want Japan to have a military. For example, as the Korean War is getting under way during 1950.

And maybe the agreed upon position is that Japan is only to have a minimal air force.
 
Top