Unfortunately, this post is about Japan, not the United States, which doesn’t take its constitution seriously at all, in recent history.
They Japanese were all ready to take out North Korea’s missile sites, which no one can deny are threat to Japan’s security, when the backed off to examine the question of whether the Japanese constitution (written and signed pretty much by force in the aftermath of World War II) allows such an action. You see, the document doesn’t allow for Japan to have a standing army, merely a “self-defense force”. Would the act of destroying the missiles constitute self-defense, or an act of aggression? As a hypothetical, what if Japan took the same view toward the North Korean nuclear reactors, which are obviously there for the purpose of making nuclear weapons?
I tend to go with the former view, that destroying an obvious threat equals self-defense, but it certainly is a valid point of debate. The important thing, and the thing that our country needs to take a lesson from, is that the Japanese believe their constitution to be binding upon them.
What a refreshing point of view. Perhaps all three branches of government in this country should take it into consideration.