Rallies held on Japan's Constitution Day
Citizens supporting and opposing a revision of Japan's Constitution held their respective events in Tokyo on Constitution Day on Saturday.
Those against amending the national charter gathered in a park in Koto Ward, with about 38,000 people attending the rally, according to the organizers.
Senior officials from opposition parties called for not allowing the parliament to propose constitutional amendments, while underscoring the need to protect peace and human rights by utilizing the current Constitution.
"We haven't created nuclear war for 80 years (since the end of World War II), and we want you to carry on these efforts," said Terumi Tanaka, 93, co-chair of the Japan Confederation of A- and H-Bomb Sufferers Organizations, also known as Nihon Hidankyo, which was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize last year.
Shoji Honda, 81, who takes part in the annual rally every year, said, "It's important to build peace under (war-renouncing) Article 9 (of the Constitution)," stressing that the supreme law must not be amended.
After the rally, participants marched around the park, holding banners and placards.
Opposition party lawmakers attend a rally of people who are against Constitutional amendments on Saturday in Tokyo. |
JIJI
On the same day, advocates of a constitutional amendment held an open forum in Chiyoda Ward.
The event brought together about 21,000 people, including online participants and attendees at 19 locations where it was broadcast, according to the organizers.
Amid the challenging international security atmosphere, which includes concern over Russia's invasion of Ukraine, participants adopted a declaration urging the ruling Liberal Democratic Party and others to advance work to revise the Constitution, including Article 9.
In a video message sent to the rally, Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba, also president of the LDP, said that the party will redouble efforts so that the Diet can make a constitutional revision proposal.
A 55-year-old corporate worker from Kanagawa Prefecture who joined the event said that he is concerned whether the current Constitution, which has not been revised since it took effect shortly after the end of World War II, is sufficient to protect the citizens of the country.
He said he believes that it should be revised in line with the changing times.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yomiuri Shimbun
3 hours ago
- Yomiuri Shimbun
Council on Elections Asks Voters to Be Mindful of Fake Information; No New Legislation Ready Before Upper House Election
A council on election campaigning comprised of seven ruling and opposition parties on Friday issued a statement calling on voters to be mindful of dis- and misinformation on social media ahead of the upcoming House of Councillors election. The statement only went so far as to urge platform operators to strengthen countermeasures on their own initiative, with no relevant legislation to be put forward before the upper house election. The campaign begins on Thursday, with voting to take place on July 20. Before any effective countermeasures can be enacted, there are thorny issues that need to be resolved, including those associated with the 'freedom of expression' guaranteed by the Constitution. The statement also requested that voters confirm the source and authenticity of information they obtain on social media and expressed hope that they 'would utilize social media and other means to contribute to the development of democracy in Japan.' It also stated that the council would 'strive to meet the expectations of the people.' Ichiro Aisawa, chairman of the LDP's Research Commission on the Election System, who is responsible for organizing the discussions, at a press conference on Friday emphasized that the council would continue to consider concrete measures for strengthening regulations. The council — which consists of representatives from the Liberal Democratic Party, Komeito, the Constitutional Democratic Party of Japan, the Japan Innovation Party, the Democratic Party for the People, Reiwa Shinsengumi and the Japanese Communist Party — has been considering specific measures to strengthen regulations on social media related to elections. Discussions on such measures among the council began in December, in response to disturbances that cropped up in local elections in various parts of the country earlier last year. In the Tokyo gubernatorial election, for example, campaign posters lacking in dignity, including one showing an almost naked woman, were an issue. In response, the ruling and opposition parties enacted a revised Public Offices Election Law in March that calls for a certain level of decency in campaign posters. However, with regards to measures to deal with dis- and misinformation on social media, the council has only been able to include the phrase 'necessary measures will be taken' in the supplementary provisions of the law. Thus, no specific countermeasures have been included. At the council meeting held on June 4, the LDP, which is leading the discussions, presented some measures to cope with dis- and misinformation on social media. However, some challenges that face their enactment have been pointed out. A proposal to establish a provision that would urge platform operators to immediately delete posts when a complaint about defamation is lodged by a candidate or others may infringe on the 'freedom of expression' of those who posted it if the post is deleted without their consent. Aisawa was also asked at the press conference when the council would reach a conclusion on the matter. But he only said, 'I would like to refrain from making any statement [on this matter].' Hiroshi Ogushi, executive deputy president of the CDPJ, also did not go into details, saying only, 'We pledge to continue our discussions vigorously even after the Diet session in the autumn in order to reach a conclusion.'
6 hours ago
イランに「孤独ではない」 旧ソ連経済同盟が首脳会議
After the Supreme Court issued a ruling that limits the ability of federal judges to issue universal injunctions — but didn't rule on the legality of President Trump's executive order on birthright citizenship — immigrant rights groups are trying a new tactic by filing a national class action lawsuit. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of two immigrant rights organizations whose members include people without legal status in the U.S. who "have had or will have children born in the United States after February 19, 2025," according to court documents. One of the lawyers representing the plaintiffs, William Powell, senior counsel at the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection at Georgetown Law, says his colleagues at CASA, Inc. and the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project think that, with the class action approach "we will be able to get complete relief for everyone who would be covered by the executive order." The strategic shift required three court filings: one to add class allegations to the initial complaint; a second to move for class certification; and a third asking a district court in Maryland to issue "a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction asking for relief for that putative class," Powell said. In the amended complaint, filed two hours after the Supreme Court's ruling, the immigrant rights attorneys said that Trump's effort to ban birthright citizenship, if allowed to stand, "would throw into doubt the citizenship status of thousands of children across the country." "The Executive Order threatens these newborns' identity as United States citizens and interferes with their enjoyment of the full privileges, rights, and benefits that come with U.S. citizenship, including calling into question their ability to remain in their country of birth," reads the complaint. Rights groups and 22 states had asked federal judges to block President Trump's executive order on birthright citizenship. Issued on his first day in office, the executive order states, "the Fourteenth Amendment has never been interpreted to extend citizenship universally to everyone born within the United States." But after three federal district court judges separately blocked Trump's order, issuing universal injunctions preventing its enforcement nationwide, the Trump administration asked the Supreme Court to block universal injunctions altogether. The Supreme Court did not rule on the birthright issue itself. But after the ruling, Trump called it a "monumental victory for the Constitution, the separation of powers and the rule of law," in a briefing at the White House. The president said the ruling means his administration can now move forward with his efforts to fundamentally reshape longstanding U.S. policy on immigration and citizenship. Friday's ruling quickly sparked questions about how the dispute over birthright citizenship will play out now — and how the ruling on universal injunctions might affect other efforts to push back on executive policies, under President Trump and future presidents. "Nationwide injunctions have been an important tool to prevent blatantly illegal and unconstitutional conduct," the National Immigrant Justice Center's director of litigation, Keren Zwick, said in a statement sent to NPR. The decision to limit such injunctions, she said, "opens a pathway for the president to break the law at will." Both Zwick and Powell emphasized that the Supreme Court did not rule on a key question: whether Trump's executive order is legal. At the White House, Attorney General Pam Bondi would not answer questions about how the order might be implemented and enforced. "This is all pending litigation," she said, adding that she expects the Supreme Court to take up the issue this fall. "We're obviously disappointed with the result on nationwide injunctions," Powell said. But, he added, he believes the Supreme Court will ultimately quash Trump's attack on birthright citizenship. "The executive order flagrantly violates the 14th Amendment citizenship clause and Section 1401a of the Immigration and Nationality Act," Powell said, "both of which guarantee birthright citizenship to nearly all children born in the United States, with only narrow exceptions for ambassadors [and] invading armies." The court's ruling set a 30-day timeframe for the policy laid out in Trump's executive order to take effect. "The Government here is likely to suffer irreparable harm from the District Courts' entry of injunctions that likely exceed the authority conferred by the Judiciary Act," a syllabus, or headnote, of the Supreme Court's ruling states. The majority opinion, written by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, also discusses the differences between "complete relief " and "universal relief." "Here, prohibiting enforcement of the Executive Order against the child of an individual pregnant plaintiff will give that plaintiff complete relief: Her child will not be denied citizenship," Barrett wrote. "Extending the injunction to cover all other similarly situated individuals would not render her relief any more complete." In her dissenting opinion, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the ruling suggests that constitutional guarantees might not apply to anyone who isn't a party to a lawsuit. The concept of birthright citizenship has deep roots, dating to the English common law notion of jus soli ("right of the soil"). The doctrine was upended for a time in the U.S. by the Supreme Court's notorious Dred Scott ruling. Current legal standing for birthright citizenship in the U.S. extends back to the 1860s, when the 14th Amendment of the Constitution was ratified, stating, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States." "Any executive order purporting to limit birthright citizenship is just as unconstitutional today as it was yesterday," Wendy Weiser, vice president for democracy at the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law School, told NPR. "There is nothing substantively in the decision that undercuts those lower court opinions. The opinion just undercuts the tools available to the courts to enforce that constitutional mandate." Copyright 2025 NPR
Yomiuri Shimbun
6 hours ago
- Yomiuri Shimbun
Public Assistance Ruling: Govt Bears Heavy Responsibility for Failing to Justify Reductions
Public assistance is an essential system for ensuring that people in need can live with peace of mind. A court ruling emphasized the need for careful consideration when changing the amount of benefits in the system. In lawsuits filed by recipients who argued that significant reductions in welfare benefits violated the Public Assistance Law, the Third Petty Bench of the Supreme Court ruled that the reductions were illegal and ordered cancellation of the cuts. The ruling has become finalized. Similar lawsuits have been filed in 29 district courts nationwide, and this ruling sets a precedent for those cases. The central and local governments will likely need to recalculate appropriate amounts not only for the plaintiffs in the lawsuits but also for all other recipients at the time of the cuts. The standard amounts for welfare benefits serve as a benchmark for other support programs, such as reductions and exemptions for childcare fees and national pension insurance premiums. These programs may also be affected. The Health, Labor and Welfare Ministry announced cuts of up to 10% in the standard amounts for food and utilities support welfare benefits during a period from 2013 to 2015, resulting in a total reduction of ¥67 billion. This measure was said to be to respond to the declines in prices and wages following the 2008 collapse of U.S. investment bank Lehman Brothers. The main point of contention in the litigations was the appropriateness of the 'deflation adjustment' reflecting the rate of price declines. The Supreme Court said that 'the revised rates in the deflation adjustment based solely on the rates of price fluctuations lacked consistency with expert knowledge,' concluding that 'the health, labor and welfare minister's judgment exceeded or abused discretion and was therefore illegal.' As for the series of the lawsuits, the cuts were ruled illegal in seven cases at the high court level. The government is considered to have broad discretionary authority, and courts generally tend to respect its judgment. In that sense, the top court's strict ruling can be described as significant. The review of public assistance was carried out after the Liberal Democratic Party included it in its campaign pledges for the 2012 House of Representatives election. Is there any suspicion that the calculations were distorted to achieve a predetermined reduction? The government should reexamine the decision-making process for the reductions and fulfill its accountability to the public. Welfare benefits in the public assistance program are received by 1.65 million households, half of which are single-person elderly households. The number of applications for welfare benefits has increased for five consecutive years, probably because more households find it difficult to make ends meet due to the COVID-19 pandemic and rising prices. The Constitution states, 'All people shall have the right to maintain the minimum standards of wholesome and cultured living,' and imposes on the state the duty to protect this right. Since reductions in welfare benefits directly affect people's lives, clear reasons for cuts are necessary. The government must enhance the transparency of the system. (From The Yomiuri Shimbun, June 28, 2025)
