So it meant that the constitutional amendment, which had been conducted following procedures defined by the Meiji Constitution (Constitution of the Empire of Japan), was merely expedient and perfunctory, and practically speaking, the Constitution of Japan was 'newly established,' not the amended version, and it had 'no substantial' legal continuity with the Constitution of the Empire of Japan.
したがって、明治憲法に定められた改正手続きによって行われたのは便宜的・形式的なもので、実質的に日本国憲法は、改正ではなく「新たに制定」、両者の間の法的連続性は「実質的には無し」という解釈が取られている。