Talk:Meiji Constitution

Important Statement in the Constitution

I think to have found a pretty important statement in the preamble and in the last chapter of the constitution.

---

When in the future it may become necessary to amend any of the provisions of the present Constitution, We or Our successors shall assume the initiative right, and submit a project for the same to the Imperial Diet. The Imperial Diet shall pass its vote upon it, according to the conditions imposed by the present Constitution, and in no otherwise shall Our descendants or Our subjects be permitted to attempt any alteration thereof.
---

Chapter VII. Supplementary Rules

Article 73.

When it has become necessary in future to amend the provisions of the present Constitution, a project to that effect shall be submitted to the Imperial Diet by Imperial Order.

(2) In the above case, neither House can open the debate, unless not less than two thirds of the whole number of Members are present, and no amendment can be passed, unless a majority of not less than two thirds of the Members present is obtained.
http://www.ndl.go.jp/constitution/e/etc/c02.html

---

As I understand it, the emperor ensures with that finding his sole right to initiate a constitutional amendment. This would mean that changes like the british Parliament Act in 1911 or even debates (!) about something like that were impossible in Japan, because - without a initiative coming directly from the Emporer - they would represent a breach of the constitution.

If that is really true shouldn't it be mentioned in the article?

--213.179.153.197 (talk) 13:22, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Prior constitution

I would dispute the point made in the article that prior to the Meiji constitution there was no written constitution in Japan. The Yōrō Code from the mid eigth century (the latest of the ritsuryō codes) certainly should qualify as a constitution under most definitions. However, the old classical constitution had become largely irrelevant by the time of the Meiji restauration, with the actual power having shifted elsewhere largely during the Heian period and completely after it. Stca74 20:11, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I think one of the absolutely key elements to the compilation and promulgation of the Meiji Constitution was that it was patterned after Western notions of what a constitution should be, and what a modern nation-state should be (i.e. that a modern nation-state, one which wanted to be recognized and respected as "modern" by the Western powers, ought to have a Constitution of a certain type or style). So, yes, Japan had previous legal codes, but I would argue it did not previously have a "Constitution". LordAmeth 20:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair points, and what I suspected was behind the wording in the article. However, I think it would help to spell this out explicitly in the article to avoid misunderstanding by someone who's not familiar with the countries old (and in the 8th century quite legalistic) history. After all, the Nara-period codes are quite comprehensive constitutions, describing a bureaucracy that is not in principle anything completely alien to "modern" constitutions (although them, and especially their meritocratic elements, were not really observed for too long...). I could draft some expansion around this unless you want to take care. Stca74 11:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you're right - and I normally am very much the type to not ignore or sideline earlier history (i.e. globalization started with the Silk Road, not with airplanes and telegraphs). Please do go ahead and expand as you see fit - though it might be a good idea to keep it brief. Cheers. LordAmeth 13:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Finally did the modifications promised. Stca74 17:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Emperor alone?

On the other hand, these “Ministers of State” were appointed by (and could be dismissed by), the Emperor alone, and not by the Prime Minister or the Diet.

I have documentation here that seem to indicate you should remove the words "the Emperor alone" from your above quote.

The first indicates that the Japanese emperor even then 'reigned but did not rule' by pointing out where Meiji articles required the delegation of the authority to others you claim were his alone,

the second pointing out he was not the only party capable of dismissing ministers of state.

According to the historians writing the section on Japan's gov't, Emperor and the Meiji Constitution in "The Oxford Companion to WWII"(Oxford University Press 1995), on pages 610-11 you could call the 'reign but not rule' area, those prerogatives were actually delegated by articles to others.

Under its 'Government' section it also backs up contrary evidence I also see in "The Japanese War Machine" (Chartwell Books 1976) pages 36-40 that point out...

Each time, and they wielded this power liberally, the military wanted a different Prime Minister or Cabinet, they simply ordered the sitting War Minister to resign which automatically dissolved the Cabinet and since a cabinet could only be reformed if a service minister were appointed, "it followed that by having serving officers in these posts the Army and the Navy had a stranglehold on the government." Pag 37

Am I reading this wrong?

It appears you should remove the words "the Emperor alone" there maybe.Befuddler 09:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello, could someone look at this sentence in the introduction:

2Under the Meiji Constitution, the Prime Minister and his Cabinet were not necessarily chosen from the elected members of the group."

I do not understand what the word "group" relates to - to the Privy Council? Ziko (talk) 19:39, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

hi

Japan= Fun —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.74.246.90 (talk) 13:31, 14 January 2010 (UTC)