Red Shirts To Rally Outside Parliament: Bangkok

[Thaddeus]

Which still has nothing to do with the court jumping into the fray before the bill even exists as law. I recognize from several of your posts that you find that to be a problem, but it isn't a problem for courts in other democracies.

Wait, let me see if I've got this right.

You think that the bill should be made lawful, before the CC gets to question its validity and legality.

Interesting.

[OzMick]

Which still has nothing to do with the court jumping into the fray before the bill even exists as law. I recognize from several of your posts that you find that to be a problem, but it isn't a problem for courts in other democracies.

Wait, let me see if I've got this right.

You think that the bill should be made lawful, before the CC gets to question its validity and legality.

Interesting.

It doesn't matter if the court decides to over-ride the bill before or after it is passed. Either way, the result will be the same - "The courts are trying to overthrow the government" and "Judicial coup, judicial coup."

What will be REALLY interesting (in the sense of "May you live in interesting times" a Chinese curse) is when the CC disbands PTP for use of Thaksin in their election campaign. Coming soon in a courtroom near you. No-one has yet (AFAIK) answered WHY they so blatantly broke electoral law as if begging to be disbanded.

Edited June 10, 2012 by OzMick

[Moruya]

Which still has nothing to do with the court jumping into the fray before the bill even exists as law. I recognize from several of your posts that you find that to be a problem, but it isn't a problem for courts in other democracies.

Wait, let me see if I've got this right.

You think that the bill should be made lawful, before the CC gets to question its validity and legality.

Interesting.

It doesn't matter if the court decides to over-ride the bill before or after it is passed. Either way, the result will be the same - "The courts are trying to overthrow the government" and "Judicial coup, judicial coup."

What will be REALLY interesting (in the sense of "May you live in interesting times" a Chinese curse) is when the CC disbands PTP for use of Thaksin in their election campaign. Coming soon in a courtroom near you. No-one has yet (AFAIK) answered WHY they so blatantly broke electoral law as if begging to be disbanded.

That's the fight they are spoiling for Mick.

The lion and the unicorn

[bangkokbruce]

I don't understand how we can call it the voice of the people

Redmob is the voice of "some people", and they have the right to have their voice heard. In democracy this means they contact their elected officials in parliament, who propose political motions to improve the lives of 'those people' who have contacted them. Proposing motions, or bills, should be conducted with open and fair debate by all sides of the parliament, and overseen by impartial moderator. The PM should be present for all except the most minor policy augmentation. The PM should answer all questions put to him/her on record and unscripted. The Opposition should be able to ask questions regarding any policy or bill to any member of the sitting government, annd it is the duty of the questionee to answer that question put to them. This is how policy is formed aloong democratic lines, by a gradual debating process and eventual consensus.

Sadly the PTP prime minister is rarely in parliament, refuses to answer questions unscripted and also avoids unscripted Q&A in almost all media events. The Oppostion are shouted down and iintimidated during debates, told to go hang themselves, debates which are not impartially moderated or intended to promote healthy balanced consensus, merely to push PTP policy through by any possible means. The redmob outside the gates is there to protect the despotic PTP leadership from the forces of democracy which are also being silenced within the parliament during the one-sided 'talk to the hand' PTP debating style.

It is not a democracy when you accept an envelop for your votte

And the reds are still standing there with they're hands out waiting for more...just pathetic

[Moruya]

I don't understand how we can call it the voice of the people

Redmob is the voice of "some people", and they have the right to have their voice heard. In democracy this means they contact their elected officials in parliament, who propose political motions to improve the lives of 'those people' who have contacted them. Proposing motions, or bills, should be conducted with open and fair debate by all sides of the parliament, and overseen by impartial moderator. The PM should be present for all except the most minor policy augmentation. The PM should answer all questions put to him/her on record and unscripted. The Opposition should be able to ask questions regarding any policy or bill to any member of the sitting government, annd it is the duty of the questionee to answer that question put to them. This is how policy is formed aloong democratic lines, by a gradual debating process and eventual consensus.

Sadly the PTP prime minister is rarely in parliament, refuses to answer questions unscripted and also avoids unscripted Q&A in almost all media events. The Oppostion are shouted down and iintimidated during debates, told to go hang themselves, debates which are not impartially moderated or intended to promote healthy balanced consensus, merely to push PTP policy through by any possible means. The redmob outside the gates is there to protect the despotic PTP leadership from the forces of democracy which are also being silenced within the parliament during the one-sided 'talk to the hand' PTP debating style.

It is not a democracy when you accept an envelop for your votte

And the reds are still standing there with they're hands out waiting for more...just pathetic

Singapore is a nanny state.

Thailand is the "gimme" state.

Soon to be bankrupt by handouts.

[tlansford]

Which still has nothing to do with the court jumping into the fray before the bill even exists as law. I recognize from several of your posts that you find that to be a problem, but it isn't a problem for courts in other democracies.

Wait, let me see if I've got this right.

You think that the bill should be made lawful, before the CC gets to question its validity and legality.

Interesting.

Funny how that is exactly the way the system works, isn't it.

[lannarebirth]

Which still has nothing to do with the court jumping into the fray before the bill even exists as law. I recognize from several of your posts that you find that to be a problem, but it isn't a problem for courts in other democracies.

Wait, let me see if I've got this right.

You think that the bill should be made lawful, before the CC gets to question its validity and legality.

Interesting.

Funny how that is exactly the way the system works, isn't it.

But that's not the way the Thai constitution works. All of this would still be going on if these appeals had been made through the AG and the AG had forwarded them to the CC. You must clearly see the flaw in this arrangement (as did the CC judges). It in effect gives the AG carte blanche to decide what may be considered constitutional and what may not. That couldn't have been the intention of a well written constitution so the judges opted to go with the intentention and have intervened. Thai government does have the means to intercede prior to bills becoming law, whether you or I think it makes any sense or not.

[tlansford]

Which still has nothing to do with the court jumping into the fray before the bill even exists as law. I recognize from several of your posts that you find that to be a problem, but it isn't a problem for courts in other democracies.

Wait, let me see if I've got this right.

You think that the bill should be made lawful, before the CC gets to question its validity and legality.

Interesting.

Funny how that is exactly the way the system works, isn't it.

But that's not the way the Thai constitution works. All of this would still be going on if these appeals had been made through the AG and the AG had forwarded them to the CC. You must clearly see the flaw in this arrangement (as did the CC judges). It in effect gives the AG carte blanche to decide what may be considered constitutional and what may not. That couldn't have been the intention of a well written constitution so the judges opted to go with the intentention and have intervened. Thai government does have the means to intercede prior to bills becoming law, whether you or I think it makes any sense or not.

The situation in Thailand has been laid out already. Let's be specific.

How can the CC declare unconstitutional a law that doesn't exist? This is the essence of the current maneuvering.

[lannarebirth]

Wait, let me see if I've got this right.

You think that the bill should be made lawful, before the CC gets to question its validity and legality.

Interesting.

Funny how that is exactly the way the system works, isn't it.

But that's not the way the Thai constitution works. All of this would still be going on if these appeals had been made through the AG and the AG had forwarded them to the CC. You must clearly see the flaw in this arrangement (as did the CC judges). It in effect gives the AG carte blanche to decide what may be considered constitutional and what may not. That couldn't have been the intention of a well written constitution so the judges opted to go with the intentention and have intervened. Thai government does have the means to intercede prior to bills becoming law, whether you or I think it makes any sense or not.

The situation in Thailand has been laid out already. Let's be specific.

How can the CC declare unconstitutional a law that doesn't exist? This is the essence of the current maneuvering.

They haven't. I believe they are merely reviewing it as requested. Usually these types of reviews come from courts PRIOR to the advancing of legislation at the BEHEST of lawmakers advacing the legislation just so these sorts of fiascoes don't arise. This one seems to be on more of a fast track for some reason.

[GentlemanJim]

[

Wait, let me see if I've got this right.

You think that the bill should be made lawful, before the CC gets to question its validity and legality.

Interesting.

Funny how that is exactly the way the system works, isn't it.

But that's not the way the Thai constitution works. All of this would still be going on if these appeals had been made through the AG and the AG had forwarded them to the CC. You must clearly see the flaw in this arrangement (as did the CC judges). It in effect gives the AG carte blanche to decide what may be considered constitutional and what may not. That couldn't have been the intention of a well written constitution so the judges opted to go with the intentention and have intervened. Thai government does have the means to intercede prior to bills becoming law, whether you or I think it makes any sense or not.

The situation in Thailand has been laid out already. Let's be specific.

How can the CC declare unconstitutional a law that doesn't exist? This is the essence of the current maneuvering.

They have not as yet declared anything to be unconstitutional. They had 5 separate complaints stating that the law may affect the constitutional Monarchy or adversely effect the constitution. The CC have a duty and obligation to act and article 68 allows them to do so legally. All they have done is delay the voting for a short time whilst they scrutinize the document to ensure that the 3rd reading and subsequent vote can go ahead legally.

[OzMick]

But that's not the way the Thai constitution works. All of this would still be going on if these appeals had been made through the AG and the AG had forwarded them to the CC. You must clearly see the flaw in this arrangement (as did the CC judges). It in effect gives the AG carte blanche to decide what may be considered constitutional and what may not. That couldn't have been the intention of a well written constitution so the judges opted to go with the intentention and have intervened. Thai government does have the means to intercede prior to bills becoming law, whether you or I think it makes any sense or not.

" You must clearly see the flaw in this arrangement....."

Before claiming that someone MUST see clearly, allowance has to be made for differences of perspective, especially where tinted lenses are involved.

Jeremiah 5:21 ‘Hear now this, O foolish people, and without understanding; which have eyes, and see not; which have ears, and hear not’

Edited June 10, 2012 by OzMick

[tlansford]

- deleted for quote limits -

Funny how that is exactly the way the system works, isn't it.

But that's not the way the Thai constitution works. All of this would still be going on if these appeals had been made through the AG and the AG had forwarded them to the CC. You must clearly see the flaw in this arrangement (as did the CC judges). It in effect gives the AG carte blanche to decide what may be considered constitutional and what may not. That couldn't have been the intention of a well written constitution so the judges opted to go with the intentention and have intervened. Thai government does have the means to intercede prior to bills becoming law, whether you or I think it makes any sense or not.

The situation in Thailand has been laid out already. Let's be specific.

How can the CC declare unconstitutional a law that doesn't exist? This is the essence of the current maneuvering.

They have not as yet declared anything to be unconstitutional. They had 5 separate complaints stating that the law may affect the constitutional Monarchy or adversely effect the constitution. The CC have a duty and obligation to act and article 68 allows them to do so legally. All they have done is delay the voting for a short time whilst they scrutinize the document to ensure that the 3rd reading and subsequent vote can go ahead legally.

no, that is not "all they have done". You are entirely ignoring the events and facts that exist.

The parliament is debating the formation of a CDA - this is being contested. Explain to me and everyone else how the CDA is unconstitutional?

The CC are pro-actively interfering in another branch of government which has its own responsibilities. The parliament has, according to the constitution, the ability to do exactly what it is doing.

The art 68 is about individuals attempting to overthrown the constitutional monarchy. Again, how is the creation of a CDA within the framework of the constitution an attempt to overthrow that same constitution?

Furthermore, there are no law-makers promoting to do so.

This is just politics. But it should be a lesson to the TVF posters proclaiming the virtues of the independence of the Thai justices.

[Thaddeus]

But that's not the way the Thai constitution works. All of this would still be going on if these appeals had been made through the AG and the AG had forwarded them to the CC. You must clearly see the flaw in this arrangement (as did the CC judges). It in effect gives the AG carte blanche to decide what may be considered constitutional and what may not. That couldn't have been the intention of a well written constitution so the judges opted to go with the intentention and have intervened. Thai government does have the means to intercede prior to bills becoming law, whether you or I think it makes any sense or not.

" You must clearly see the flaw in this arrangement....."

Before claiming that someone MUST see clearly, allowance has to be made for differences of perspective, especially where tinted lenses are involved.

Jeremiah 5:21 ‘Hear now this, O foolish people, and without understanding; which have eyes, and see not; which have ears, and hear not’

Paul Simon's version was shorter.

"Still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest"

[Thaddeus]

Furthermore, there are no law-makers promoting to do so.

It hasn't reached them yet, thankfully.