"The Diet shall be the highest organ of the state power, and shall be the sole law-making organ of the State." ― Article 41 of Japan's Constitution

These were the words of Prime Minister Shinzo Abe at an April 23 press conference when the premier was asked about Japan's right to collective self-defense: "The international situation facing Japan today has changed greatly. I'd like to prepare the legal groundwork so that Japan can make a good contribution to international society. In these changing times, I'd like to have a discussion about how we interpret the Constitution." (From the Nihon Keizai Shimbun) 　　　　Abe again made the request for a national discussion on constitutional revision at a press conference in Cairo on May 2. He has set up informal gatherings of specialists to discuss constitutional changes in order to exercise Japan's collective right to self-defense.
　　　　The prime minister has repeatedly made his intentions plain: He wants to examine ways to reinterpret the Constitution. 　　　　The current Constitution prohibits Japan from using military force. To get around this fact, Article 9 would have to be revised. This has been the stance of governments until now. But Abe is trying to pave a new path toward militarization by advocating a reinterpretation of the Constitution.
　　　　There is no political question more important in Japan today than whether the country should militarize. Revision of the Constitution must follow the path laid out by Article 96. This has been the conventional wisdom of the administrations preceding Abe's. But now the prime minister has begun studying ways to reinterpret the Constitution. 　　　　The regulations in the Constitution make revision a very difficult task. First, a given proposal must gain the votes of two-thirds of the members of both houses. Then a majority of voters must approve the measure in a special referendum. This takes time. Reinterpreting the Constitution is clearly the simpler path. Change can come about quickly that way.
　　　　However, no matter what happens, the prime minister is supposed to uphold the law. This is especially true with the basic laws of society set out in its Constitution. The government's power is a public power. Whatever obstacles present themselves, it should follow a just path. But a government that leads the nation down the evil path of constitutional "reinterpretation" ― or in reality, changes to the Constitution ― repudiates the very foundation of a nation ruled by law. Moreover, it is a blasphemous act toward the people and democracy. Quibble all you want about what it means to "reinterpret" the Constitution ― in the end, it is an illegal and evil action.
　　　　Article 9 of the Constitution says: "Aspiring sincerely to an international peace based on justice and order, the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes. (part 1) In order to accomplish the aim of the preceding paragraph, land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained. The right of belligerency of the state will not be recognized. (part 2)" The regulations laid out here are evidence that Japan is not allowed to exercise its collective right to self-defense.
　　　　As long as the current Constitution exists, the Japanese government is supposed to uphold it.
　　　　To exercise Japan's collective right of self-defense, one would need to follow the legal procedures and revise Article 9. It's an act of sheer contempt toward the people and democracy to try to achieve militarization through reinterpreting the laws of the land. We can't take illegal steps to achieve an end even if the United States is demanding it. The thinking that has led us to this place must be changed for once and for all.