Forum - View topicINTEREST: Kagawa Governor Claims Gaming Ordinance Is Not Unconstitutional
|
Note: this is the discussion thread for this article |
| Author | Message | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
TarsTarkas
 Posts: 5824 Location: Virginia, United States |
|
|||||
|
Here's hoping the plaintiff's win. We don't need the government involved in all parts of our lives.
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
paperbox
Posts: 26 |
|
|||||
|
That's BS, now what, if you use your phone or play games your parent's paid for you or your parent's could be arrested? For something as stupid as that? Kid's need rules, yes, but it's not the government's duty to do that, it's the parent's.
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Electric Wooloo
Posts: 310 |
|
|||||
It's a voluntary ordinance with no enforcement, this isn't some law with fines. It's akin to your neighborhood committee saying "please keep your lawn mowed" it's just a suggestion for people to consider. |
||||||
|
||||||
|
nargun
Posts: 924 |
|
|||||
I'm not hugely familiar with the details of Japanese local-government law, but... it's pretty basic that Japan is a unitary state and that prefectural governments excercise solely the powers that have been delegated to them by the central government. Do these delegated powers include the power to pass law-shaped "suggestions" that have the form of binding law without the substance? That seems like an unusual power to delegate! What is the basis on which you have concluded that Kagawa prefecture has the authority to do... whatever it is that they're doing? ("I'm not a lawyer" or " I don't speak Japanese" or that sort of thing means you lack the knowledge you needed to justify making your original claim. "I don't know (now)" means "I didn't know (then)". If you want to argue that prefectures should have the power to pass "suggestions" you can, but you argued they actually *had* that power, and that requires more evidence than "it would make sense if they did". ) |
||||||
|
||||||
|
Nayrael
Posts: 23 |
|
|||||
That can be a trap in long-term as once a law is passed, it can be updated. That is, there are no enforcements or penalties now, but later there can be. It's always safer to try to kill such laws in their infancy. Other (non-political) groups can make advisories about how much youths should be allowed to play games. |
||||||
|
||||||
Tripple-A
 Posts: 383 Location: Hamburg, Germany |
|
|||||
Totally with you on that. These things can have major consequences in the long run if not dealt with as soon as possible. I really hope they win this case as it's not a matter that should have any involvement from the government in the first place. |
||||||
|
||||||
|
H. Guderian
Posts: 1255 |
|
|||||
|
Indeed, why pass a law that doesn't do anything that is voluntary?
See, the thing is THIS guy might be fine taking it this far and no farther. A successor might think otherwise, and then a few justified slippery slopes later and an empty hollow ordinance will become more. If it is entirely voluntary, what's wrong with repealing it? |
||||||
|
||||||
|
ATastySub
Past ANN Contributor
 Posts: 647 |
|
|||||
Because they believe it’s for the public good to have that information known, but not to make it a government responsibility. Every government has these kind of laws and non-binding resolutions. This isn’t some scary secret step to stealing your videogames. It’s the formal version of a PSA. Kids, and clearly some adults, can use a break from video games every now and then. That’s exactly why the lawsuit is clearly frivolous, because nothing is being mandated, no ones rights are being infringed, and the case being made against it is so clearly hyperbolic. |
||||||
|
||||||
|
TarsTarkas
Posts: 5824 Location: Virginia, United States |
|
|||||
You don't need to pass a law to say that. Just because the government says they won't enforce the law, doesn't mean they won't enforce it, and what happens when a new government is elected. Also, there is no law that says they don't have to enforce it. So you are breaking the law, but it is up to chance whether you will be held accountable or not. The primary danger of these types of laws, besides the fear that the government could change their mind, or use that law to get you, when they are unable to get you on another charge, is the Precedent it sets. Such laws need to be challenged quickly and successfully. Lest we end up being told how much soda we are allowed to drink by law, like a certain east coast city of ours. |
||||||
|
||||||
|
Kat Callahan
Posts: 4 |
|
|||||
|
Hi. JHS civics teacher in Japan here. 公民教師.
Just to add some facts for the discussion: Poster who said prefectural and municipal authority is willingly devolved from central authority is correct. Japan doesn't have federalism or the like. This ordinance or prefectural law is still a law. Decisions to arrest and enforce (that is to say "execute" the law) are made by prosecutors and police. But this is not a "non-binding resolution" like when Tokyo has a prefectural "vote" resolving Godzilla is now a prefectural citizen. It's still real law. And it can be enforced and penalties can be attached. Japan has judicial review. This means courts get to decide the constitutionality of a law. Final appeal is the Supreme Court of Japan. It rarely overturns legislative decisions. And is not as active in establishing precedent as the judiciaries of other countries. Especially compared to its judicial review model post-WWII: SCOTUS. The Governor isn't really expressing any kind of legal position or authority when he says he believes the law is not unconstitutional. It's very much a "that's just your opinion, man" sort of situation until the courts render a verdict and set a precedent. And there are other options. They could dismiss the case without reaching verdict for all sorts of reasons and the issue would remain unresolved until another case came up and worked its way through the process to verdict. |
||||||
|
||||||
|
nargun
Posts: 924 |
|
|||||
|
Thank you for that, Kat Callahan. It sounds like it's a complex issue, and nobody can say anything definite until the court cases are all finished.
[やはり] |
||||||
|
||||||
Haterater
 Posts: 1727 |
|
|||||
|
Should have been just a suggestion than a law to avoid this headache. I can see well-being about it, but can be abused when it "law" form.
|
||||||
|
||||||
 |
All times are GMT - 5 Hours |
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group