Nobel laureate Masukawa, others sue gov't over security laws

The 143 plaintiffs filed the suit Thursday at the Nagoya District Court, each seeking 100,000 yen in damages, claiming they have suffered psychologically as the laws have increased the risk of them being caught up in war and terror attacks.

I assume this 100000 yen is only symbolic? I doubt this lawsuit will do anything but one can hope.

claiming they have suffered psychologically as the laws have increased the risk of them being caught up in war and terror attacks.

So they are claiming they are suffering from thoughts about something that has not happened. They should see a mental health professional instead of a judge. Should stick to arguing whether or not the law violates the Japanese constitution.

Japanese people must unite to resist Abe's anti-peace policy. On one can take Japan to a war, except Japanese themselves.

Last i checked, Japan has judicial review which means that courts, if not reversed by supreme, or if proven unconstitutional by supreme, can nullify that law.

That being said, anyone wanna wager a guess as to why there's reactive judicial review (people have to sue for ruling) rather than proactive judicial review (court rules on constitutionality before bill becomes law)? The latter sounds more protecting of civil society from corruption and even crimes against humanity in the extreme.

Nasubi:

Imagine for a moment that the overwhelming majority in a country wants to ethnically cleanse their country of what they deem undesirables. That would actually pass into law and go into effect as the overwhelming majority (democratic) decided this. In parliamentary supremacy (e.g. UK), it is the law and courts cannot overturn. In (reactive) judicial review (e.g. US), a victim can sue and possibly get the law overturned, but only after the damage has been done. In proactive judicial review, that law wouldn't have been given assent in the first place. Just my humble opinion...

As far as a more democratic implementation, the upper house of parliament could be reconfigured to only look at the constitutionality of the bill (through respective committees). On another note, in Ireland, the president (reserve executive within a parliamentary system) has the duty to refer bill to constitutional court if he has misgivings about it. If declared unconstitutional, he must refuse assent (veto).

Theres something disgusting about people inthe ivory tower complaining because they might be indanger of losing their peace-nationalist status as a nation, and joun the real world.