Pheu Thai Against Educational Requirement For Constitution Drafting Assembly Selection

[bigbamboo]

Pheu Thai Against Educational Requirement for Constitution Drafting Assembly Selection!

So that stupid people can be included. Stupid people need a represeantation as well, not just lawyers, merchants, the handicaps, women, farmers, etc.

So if you are charged with a criminal offence you would choose a rice farmer to represent you in court?

No, you would choose an expensive American lawyer.

[rixalex]

The debate on here has always been overwhelmingly anti-Thaksin (not a bad thing imo), but has always given an easy ride to his Old Establishment opponents, which is where most of the dissenting debate comes from.

Always baffled me why the "dissenting debaters" you speak of (guess ou are including your good self?) who feel that Thaksin's old establishment opponents are getting an easy ride, don't spend time shining the light on those opponents failings. If there is inbalance, that would surely help redress it. Instead what the "dissenting debaters" seem to spend most of their time doing, is telling people to stop attacking Thaksin because he is not the only / not the worst offender. If they aren't Thaksin defenders / apologisers, they certainly do a job of appearing that way.

[Siam Simon]

The debate on here has always been overwhelmingly anti-Thaksin (not a bad thing imo), but has always given an easy ride to his Old Establishment opponents, which is where most of the dissenting debate comes from.

Always baffled me why the "dissenting debaters" you speak of (guess ou are including your good self?) who feel that Thaksin's old establishment opponents are getting an easy ride, don't spend time shining the light on those opponents failings. If there is inbalance, that would surely help redress it. Instead what the "dissenting debaters" seem to spend most of their time doing, is telling people to stop attacking Thaksin because he is not the only / not the worst offender. If they aren't Thaksin defenders / apologisers, they certainly do a job of appearing that way.

It just appears that way to you because most posters in these threads (yourself included) try to turn every thread into an anti-Thaksin thread. As alluded to by Anterian a few days ago, one has only to not be rabidly anti-Thaksin in order to be accused of being and harangued as a Thaksin apologist/paid spinmaster on here, and it was always thus.

Anyway, the topic at hand is qualifications for the Constitution Drafting Assembly. What's your view?

[animatic]

If not letting the Thaksin PR Propaganda go unanswered,

and so kept from changing everyones perceptions,

that is a small step in preventing his mindset from taking over completely.

All it takes is good peoples silence to bad arguments,

to let bad arguments be the ONLY answers anyone knows.

I know it seems grossly redundant and repetitive,

but then so is the fodder put out by his professionals driven push

to override the better instincts of Thai society for his own benefits.

Aren't we supposed to contact admin if we have any evidence that posters are paid to post? All I see is a small minority of posters posting honest opinions (and often hard facts which the other side of the debate tries it's best to ignore/massage away) which take a different POV to the majority view. The debate on here has always been overwhelmingly anti-Thaksin (not a bad thing imo), but has always given an easy ride to his Old Establishment opponents, which is where most of the dissenting debate comes from.

Anyway, ontopic: Surely the only real qualification that counts is a very good one in Law. Any other is just candy floss.

No where do I say anyone is paid to post in TVF.

But to imagine that the talking points are not provided by pros,

or that Pros are not swamping all of Thailand Farang and Thai alike with Thaksins PR,

is to ignore the obvious, and to stick head in sand, and butt in air with a 'kick me please krup 'sign on it.

Edited March 10, 2012 by animatic

[tlansford]

Let them drop the degree requirement.

It opens up the process and allows all involved to say that it was possible to have all voices from Thai society heard and involved in the process.

Reality is that most of the CDA will likely have degrees anyway, and as someone noted, if it is not a law degree, what difference will it really make?

[rixalex]

It just appears that way to you because most posters in these threads (yourself included) try to turn every thread into an anti-Thaksin thread.

I don't believe that to be true, but if it were, as i say, the reaction i would expect from you, someone who has no time for Thaksin, but who simply thinks his opponents get an easy ride, would be not to spend any time telling people to stop attacking Thaksin, a man you have no time for, but to attack yourself those aforementioned people, getting the easy ride.

As alluded to by Anterian a few days ago, one has only to not be rabidly anti-Thaksin in order to be accused of being and harangued as a Thaksin apologist/paid spinmaster on here, and it was always thus.

Plenty of misrepresenting going on here all the time, from all directions. Don't like Thaksin, or don't like the job Yingluck is doing, you must be a yellow shirt.

Anyway, the topic at hand is qualifications for the Constitution Drafting Assembly. What's your view?

My view is there is almost always a hidden agenda going on. If PT is against educational requirement for those drafting, i believe if you dig deep enough you will find it has its roots not with any sense of we believe this simply out of principle, but rather we are saying this because we have certain people in mind who we want included but who couldn't be if there was a high educational requirement.

[Puwa]

What's the point in having a constitution when you don't have constitutionalism--the common belief that law is the final arbiter? Both the old-guard and new have shown their disdain for the rule of law. Until the people of Thailand demand the rule of law, and are willing to live by it, any constitution is just words on paper.

[Siam Simon]

My view is there is almost always a hidden agenda going on. If PT is against educational requirement for those drafting, i believe if you dig deep enough you will find it has its roots not with any sense of we believe this simply out of principle, but rather we are saying this because we have certain people in mind who we want included but who couldn't be if there was a high educational requirement.

That may well be an angle from PT, and is worth looking into. But what about the bigger picture? Are people with crappy, non-law-related degrees any more qualified to make legal judgments than people with broad life experience? Or should this be restricted to people with sound legal nous?

[rubl]

My view is there is almost always a hidden agenda going on. If PT is against educational requirement for those drafting, i believe if you dig deep enough you will find it has its roots not with any sense of we believe this simply out of principle, but rather we are saying this because we have certain people in mind who we want included but who couldn't be if there was a high educational requirement.

That may well be an angle from PT, and is worth looking into. But what about the bigger picture? Are people with crappy, non-law-related degrees any more qualified to make legal judgments than people with broad life experience? Or should this be restricted to people with sound legal nous?

Before drafting you need to make some basic assumptions. Like which constituation you take as starting point, what the goal is, timeframe, input collection, drafting team composition, and so on.

For input you require people from all layers of society, for drafting legal experts. IMHO

[rixalex]

My view is there is almost always a hidden agenda going on. If PT is against educational requirement for those drafting, i believe if you dig deep enough you will find it has its roots not with any sense of we believe this simply out of principle, but rather we are saying this because we have certain people in mind who we want included but who couldn't be if there was a high educational requirement.

That may well be an angle from PT, and is worth looking into. But what about the bigger picture? Are people with crappy, non-law-related degrees any more qualified to make legal judgments than people with broad life experience? Or should this be restricted to people with sound legal nous?

I think if the aim is balance, less restrictions the better really, besides the obvious basic ones, ie no criminal record. Key point is those chosen, bring something to the table in terms of skill set. They need not all have the same skill set, ie they need not all be legal gurus.

[Reasonableman]

A transparent set of selection criteria would be a good start. Stacking the committee will result in loss of credibility, illegitimacy, lack of acceptance, and guaranteed further conflict.

[rixalex]

A transparent set of selection criteria would be a good start. Stacking the committee will result in loss of credibility, illegitimacy, lack of acceptance, and guaranteed further conflict.

Precisely.

And in my opinion, these is nothing transparent about this push from the PT for no or little educational requirement. I guarantee it's because they have certain people in mind, with which to do that stacking you speak of. Call me a cynic.

[phiphidon]

A transparent set of selection criteria would be a good start. Stacking the committee will result in loss of credibility, illegitimacy, lack of acceptance, and guaranteed further conflict.

Precisely.

And in my opinion, these is nothing transparent about this push from the PT for no or little educational requirement. I guarantee it's because they have certain people in mind, with which to do that stacking you speak of. Call me a cynic.

Ok, You're a cynic. Lets look at the two Constitution CDA compositions; (Please excuse the C & P from Wikipedia but it saves time and I have linked a case study by the Asian Human Rights Commission as well so you can dig the information out of there if you distrust Wikipedia in this case).

1996 CDA:

99 members being 76 deputies elected by citizens of 76 Chanagwats (Provinces) and 23 academicians from higher education institutes.

2007 CDA:

100 members, being 28 from the public service sector, 27 from the private sector, 23 from the social sector and 22 from the academic sector, or being 10 from the northern region, 68 from the central region, 12 from the eastern region and 10 from the southern region.

Note that the Military Junta became the Council for National Security, CNS. In reality the CNS appointed a 2000 member National Peoples Assembly, NPA. The NPA then selected 200 members of its assembly to be candidates for the Constitution Drafting Assembly. The CNS then selected 100 of the candidates for Royal appointment to the CDA. They would also pick the leader of the CDA. The CDA would then appoint 25 constitution writers and the CNS (Junta) would pick 10.

Therefore the Junta (CNS) had complete control over the writing of the Constitution.

Now which one do you think was more democratic? And which method is being used as a model for the new CDA?

I really think your fears of the PTP packing the CDA with educationally sub normal civilians with ulterior motives in mind is groundless.

http://www.hrschool....p/lesson49/188/ (Asian Human Rights Commission Case Study)

[Reasonableman]

The government is therefore aiming to improve the process, in your opinion.

Is it correct that each Province will get one rep, regardless of population size? How will provincial reps be nominated and selected?

Edited March 11, 2012 by Reasonableman

[Reasonableman]

Seems Phipidon is out to lunch. No worries, the questions stand. Anyone else know the answers?

The government is therefore aiming to improve the process, in your opinion.

Is it correct that each Province will get one rep, regardless of population size? How will provincial reps be nominated and selected?

[phiphidon]

The government is therefore aiming to improve the process, in your opinion.

Is it correct that each Province will get one rep, regardless of population size? How will provincial reps be nominated and selected?

According to the other paper the PTP want 77? invdividual reps form provinces and 22 academics. Abhisit has suggested 150 reps with the 48 biggest provinces having 2 reps. I think that he, Yingluck and a couple of others are on a committee looking at the formation of a CDA so it will probably be a compromise between the two. Whatever happens it is going to be a big improvement on the Junta CDA, in anybodies opinion I would have thought.

[animatic]

A transparent set of selection criteria would be a good start. Stacking the committee will result in loss of credibility, illegitimacy, lack of acceptance, and guaranteed further conflict.

None of which they are even slightly concerned with.

[Reasonableman]

So the numbers are being negotiated, and no-one knows. And how the provincial reps will be selected, does anyone know? The legislation creating the CDA has been passed already hasn't it?

The government is therefore aiming to improve the process, in your opinion.

Is it correct that each Province will get one rep, regardless of population size? How will provincial reps be nominated and selected?

According to the other paper the PTP want 77? invdividual reps form provinces and 22 academics. Abhisit has suggested 150 reps with the 48 biggest provinces having 2 reps. I think that he, Yingluck and a couple of others are on a committee looking at the formation of a CDA so it will probably be a compromise between the two. Whatever happens it is going to be a big improvement on the Junta CDA, in anybodies opinion I would have thought.

[animatic]

A transparent set of selection criteria would be a good start. Stacking the committee will result in loss of credibility, illegitimacy, lack of acceptance, and guaranteed further conflict.

Precisely.

And in my opinion, these is nothing transparent about this push from the PT for no or little educational requirement. I guarantee it's because they have certain people in mind, with which to do that stacking you speak of. Call me a cynic.

Ok, You're a cynic. Lets look at the two Constitution CDA compositions; (Please excuse the C & P from Wikipedia but it saves time and I have linked a case study by the Asian Human Rights Commission as well so you can dig the information out of there if you distrust Wikipedia in this case).

1996 CDA:

99 members being 76 deputies elected by citizens of 76 Chanagwats (Provinces) and 23 academicians from higher education institutes.

2007 CDA:

100 members, being 28 from the public service sector, 27 from the private sector, 23 from the social sector and 22 from the academic sector, or being 10 from the northern region, 68 from the central region, 12 from the eastern region and 10 from the southern region.

Note that the Military Junta became the Council for National Security, CNS. In reality the CNS appointed a 2000 member National Peoples Assembly, NPA. The NPA then selected 200 members of its assembly to be candidates for the Constitution Drafting Assembly. The CNS then selected 100 of the candidates for Royal appointment to the CDA. They would also pick the leader of the CDA. The CDA would then appoint 25 constitution writers and the CNS (Junta) would pick 10.

Therefore the Junta (CNS) had complete control over the writing of the Constitution.

Now which one do you think was more democratic? And which method is being used as a model for the new CDA?

I really think your fears of the PTP packing the CDA with educationally sub normal civilians with ulterior motives in mind is groundless.

http://www.hrschool....p/lesson49/188/ (Asian Human Rights Commission Case Study)

But then the populace voted on the constitution making it the law of the land.

Now they want a different biased bunch to rewrite it to benefit themselves.

There is little difference in the process at the bottom line.

A hand picked bunch of people are being aimed to do the job.

Don't for a minute imagine that the elected members will be left to chance,

if they go that route for 'appearances sake'.

Edited March 11, 2012 by animatic

[rixalex]

1996 CDA:

99 members being 76 deputies elected by citizens of 76 Chanagwats (Provinces) and 23 academicians from higher education institutes.

Out of interest, any idea who were the citizens who did the electing, and who chose the academics?

[phiphidon]

1996 CDA:

99 members being 76 deputies elected by citizens of 76 Chanagwats (Provinces) and 23 academicians from higher education institutes.

Out of interest, any idea who were the citizens who did the electing, and who chose the academics?

No, sorry

[CalgaryII]

Animatic, #50^

"But then the populace voted on the constitution making it the law of the land.

Now they want a different biased bunch to rewrite it to benefit themselves.

There is little difference in the process at the bottom line.

A hand picked bunch of people are being aimed to dop the job.

Don't for a minute that the elected members will be left to chance,

if they go that route for 'appearances sake'."

• Any verification process conducted under the auspices of a coup administration, even with electoral facades, are invalid.
  
• "A different bunch"?........But Democratically elected with constitutional reform being an electoral plank.............................. Difference - like night and day!
  
• Very difficult to make a case equating electorally based selections with coupist based selections. At least I am happy, I am not trying to make the coupist case.
  
• Elected members elected under the auspices of an elected Government are legitimate and credible..
  
• Appearances and perception is everything.......coupist machinations cast negativity, electoral based approaches the opposite.
  

Not complicated.

[phiphidon]

1996 CDA:

99 members being 76 deputies elected by citizens of 76 Chanagwats (Provinces) and 23 academicians from higher education institutes.

Out of interest, any idea who were the citizens who did the electing, and who chose the academics?

I initially said No, but then remembered this;

the House of Representatives nominated an ad hoc committee, the Constitutional Reform Committee, to analyze the necessary steps for fundamental reform in 1993. This committee presented its report in 1995. The Committee for Developing Democracy then staged a nation wide series of public hearings regarding constitutional reform to ensure that the debate was not limited to Bangkok alone. In May 1996 parliament passed a Constitutional Amendment Bill that provided for a Constitutional Drafting Assembly (CDA) made up of 99 members. There was one member from each of the country's 76 provinces. The rest of the members were experts in public law, political science and public administration short-listed by universities, to be chosen by the parliament. The CDA was to conduct a survey of public opinion through hearings and finalize a draft for presentation to the parliament in 240 days. If parliament voted short of a majority, a public referendum would be held.

As for individual Province Reps, I do not know.

[rixalex]

1996 CDA:

99 members being 76 deputies elected by citizens of 76 Chanagwats (Provinces) and 23 academicians from higher education institutes.

Out of interest, any idea who were the citizens who did the electing, and who chose the academics?

I initially said No, but then remembered this;

the House of Representatives nominated an ad hoc committee, the Constitutional Reform Committee, to analyze the necessary steps for fundamental reform in 1993. This committee presented its report in 1995. The Committee for Developing Democracy then staged a nation wide series of public hearings regarding constitutional reform to ensure that the debate was not limited to Bangkok alone. In May 1996 parliament passed a Constitutional Amendment Bill that provided for a Constitutional Drafting Assembly (CDA) made up of 99 members. There was one member from each of the country's 76 provinces. The rest of the members were experts in public law, political science and public administration short-listed by universities, to be chosen by the parliament. The CDA was to conduct a survey of public opinion through hearings and finalize a draft for presentation to the parliament in 240 days. If parliament voted short of a majority, a public referendum would be held.

As for individual Province Reps, I do not know.

Thanks.

I think it's likely that in both cases, 1996 and 2007, some people chosen to be involved were chosen not, or at least not only, for their skills, but for their political persuasion.

To think that this time around will somehow be different, strikes me as being a little naive, especially when one considers what may well be at the heart of this drive.

[animatic]

Animatic, #50^

"But then the populace voted on the constitution making it the law of the land.

Now they want a different biased bunch to rewrite it to benefit themselves.

There is little difference in the process at the bottom line.

A hand picked bunch of people are being aimed to dop the job.

Don't for a minute that the elected members will be left to chance,

if they go that route for 'appearances sake'."

• Any verification process conducted under the auspices of a coup administration, even with electoral facades, are invalid.
  
• "A different bunch"?........But Democratically elected with constitutional reform being an electoral plank.............................. Difference - like night and day!
  
• Very difficult to make a case equating electorally based selections with coupist based selections. At least I am happy, I am not trying to make the coupist case.
  
• Elected members elected under the auspices of an elected Government are legitimate and credible..
  
• Appearances and perception is everything.......coupist machinations cast negativity, electoral based approaches the opposite.
  

Not complicated.

So goes your argument, but doesn't make the point.

No sale yet again, even with those official looking bullets before your talking points.

All those that voted in the post PPP Dem coalition government were ALSO

elected by the Thai populace. Every single one of them, and there was no

specific constitutional need to call another election. Somchai had the option,

but didn't take it, he lost that bet.

The simple fact of election doesn't make it's MPS credible in the least, just elected.

PPP made that point perfectly, and PTP so far has run that point into the ground.

It is equally valid to see this government functioning under an "electoral facade".

Edited March 11, 2012 by animatic

[Siam Simon]

A transparent set of selection criteria would be a good start. Stacking the committee will result in loss of credibility, illegitimacy, lack of acceptance, and guaranteed further conflict.

Precisely.

And in my opinion, these is nothing transparent about this push from the PT for no or little educational requirement. I guarantee it's because they have certain people in mind, with which to do that stacking you speak of. Call me a cynic.

Ok, You're a cynic. Lets look at the two Constitution CDA compositions; (Please excuse the C & P from Wikipedia but it saves time and I have linked a case study by the Asian Human Rights Commission as well so you can dig the information out of there if you distrust Wikipedia in this case).

1996 CDA:

99 members being 76 deputies elected by citizens of 76 Chanagwats (Provinces) and 23 academicians from higher education institutes.

2007 CDA:

100 members, being 28 from the public service sector, 27 from the private sector, 23 from the social sector and 22 from the academic sector, or being 10 from the northern region, 68 from the central region, 12 from the eastern region and 10 from the southern region.

Note that the Military Junta became the Council for National Security, CNS. In reality the CNS appointed a 2000 member National Peoples Assembly, NPA. The NPA then selected 200 members of its assembly to be candidates for the Constitution Drafting Assembly. The CNS then selected 100 of the candidates for Royal appointment to the CDA. They would also pick the leader of the CDA. The CDA would then appoint 25 constitution writers and the CNS (Junta) would pick 10.

Therefore the Junta (CNS) had complete control over the writing of the Constitution.

Now which one do you think was more democratic? And which method is being used as a model for the new CDA?

I really think your fears of the PTP packing the CDA with educationally sub normal civilians with ulterior motives in mind is groundless.

http://www.hrschool....p/lesson49/188/ (Asian Human Rights Commission Case Study)

But then the populace voted on the constitution making it the law of the land.

Now they want a different biased bunch to rewrite it to benefit themselves.

There is little difference in the process at the bottom line.

A hand picked bunch of people are being aimed to do the job.

Don't for a minute imagine that the elected members will be left to chance,

if they go that route for 'appearances sake'.

Here we go again! The population was given the option of the 2007 constitution or "we" (the junta) "will stay in power indefinitely". It wouldn't be a bad move (except that it'd upset the generals) for PT to re-present the 2007 constitution to The People in a new referendum tomorrow. I'd bet my life savings on it getting a laughably low thumbs-up.

[Siam Simon]

My view is there is almost always a hidden agenda going on. If PT is against educational requirement for those drafting, i believe if you dig deep enough you will find it has its roots not with any sense of we believe this simply out of principle, but rather we are saying this because we have certain people in mind who we want included but who couldn't be if there was a high educational requirement.

That may well be an angle from PT, and is worth looking into. But what about the bigger picture? Are people with crappy, non-law-related degrees any more qualified to make legal judgments than people with broad life experience? Or should this be restricted to people with sound legal nous?

I think if the aim is balance, less restrictions the better really, besides the obvious basic ones, ie no criminal record. Key point is those chosen, bring something to the table in terms of skill set. They need not all have the same skill set, ie they need not all be legal gurus.

Yes, in these difficult and partisan times, balance is going to be a limited option. But I agree with both you and uncle Rubl that it eventually has to be a broad palette.

[animatic]

'Reasonableman' timestamp='1331434388' post='5124610'

A transparent set of selection criteria would be a good start. Stacking the committee will result in loss of credibility, illegitimacy, lack of acceptance, and guaranteed further conflict.

Precisely.

And in my opinion, these is nothing transparent about this push from the PT for no or little educational requirement. I guarantee it's because they have certain people in mind, with which to do that stacking you speak of. Call me a cynic.

Ok, You're a cynic. Lets look at the two Constitution CDA compositions; (Please excuse the C & P from Wikipedia but it saves time and I have linked a case study by the Asian Human Rights Commission as well so you can dig the information out of there if you distrust Wikipedia in this case).

1996 CDA:

99 members being 76 deputies elected by citizens of 76 Chanagwats (Provinces) and 23 academicians from higher education institutes.

2007 CDA:

100 members, being 28 from the public service sector, 27 from the private sector, 23 from the social sector and 22 from the academic sector, or being 10 from the northern region, 68 from the central region, 12 from the eastern region and 10 from the southern region.

Note that the Military Junta became the Council for National Security, CNS. In reality the CNS appointed a 2000 member National Peoples Assembly, NPA. The NPA then selected 200 members of its assembly to be candidates for the Constitution Drafting Assembly. The CNS then selected 100 of the candidates for Royal appointment to the CDA. They would also pick the leader of the CDA. The CDA would then appoint 25 constitution writers and the CNS (Junta) would pick 10.

Therefore the Junta (CNS) had complete control over the writing of the Constitution.

Now which one do you think was more democratic? And which method is being used as a model for the new CDA?

I really think your fears of the PTP packing the CDA with educationally sub normal civilians with ulterior motives in mind is groundless.

http://www.hrschool....p/lesson49/188/ (Asian Human Rights Commission Case Study)

But then the populace voted on the constitution making it the law of the land.

Now they want a different biased bunch to rewrite it to benefit themselves.

There is little difference in the process at the bottom line.

A hand picked bunch of people are being aimed to do the job.

Don't for a minute imagine that the elected members will be left to chance,

if they go that route for 'appearances sake'.

Here we go again! The population was given the option of the 2007 constitution or "we" (the junta) "will stay in power indefinitely". It wouldn't be a bad move (except that it'd upset the generals) for PT to re-present the 2007 constitution to The People in a new referendum tomorrow. I'd bet my life savings on it getting a laughably low thumbs-up.

I wouldn't bet on that if I were you. They are using a few items rewritten as an excuse to delve deeper on the sky. And the offer they give the people will be similar.

Take this now or we stay indefinitely. Oh, wait,

take this now, so we can take you to the cleaners indefinitely.

Edited March 11, 2012 by animatic

[rixalex]

Here we go again! The population was given the option of the 2007 constitution or "we" (the junta) "will stay in power indefinitely". It wouldn't be a bad move (except that it'd upset the generals) for PT to re-present the 2007 constitution to The People in a new referendum tomorrow. I'd bet my life savings on it getting a laughably low thumbs-up.

Nonsense.

Public was told that if the constitution was not endorsed in a referendum, an old constitution in a revised form would be put together. At no stage was it said that this constitution would be forced upon the people. At no stage did anyone say they planned to stay in power indefinitely. Of course it would have meant a delay in elections, but without an agreed upon constitution, that would have been impossible to avoid.

Fact is, the public was completely free to vote whichever they wanted to, and Thaksin and his chums were very much banking on them voting no, as it quite possibly would have given them the endorsement they required to stage an immediate come back.

As for you thinking the 2007 constitution if put to the people now would be turned down, i put it to you that 99% of the population could only give the vaguest of notions as to what is entailed in that constitution, or any other constitution for that matter.

[TAWP]

What's the point in having a constitution when you don't have constitutionalism--the common belief that law is the final arbiter? Both the old-guard and new have shown their disdain for the rule of law. Until the people of Thailand demand the rule of law, and are willing to live by it, any constitution is just words on paper.

So perhaps there shouldn't be a requirement for an applicant to have a degree, but to pass a test inquiring about understanding what a constitution is, it's place in the structure of society etc.

Of course this will not prohibit some more radical socialists to try to get in 'rights' of all citizens that include access to free healthcare, education, food and a big present on a persons birthday.