Charter Amendment Is Legal: Attorney General

[Thaddeus]

Why are MP's around the world called law makers Thaddeus? If they don't make laws who does?

Sorry, I've been out for a few hours, partly to maintain a grip on my sanity, and partly to watch the semi finals at Roland Garros.

Please name me a couple of countries around the world that call MP's, or Politicians if you like, law makers.

If you exclude the countries that have names containing the words, peoples, democratic or republic, you will struggle to find one.

This term has been eased into the Thai mind set so that when it does turn in to the the People's Democratic Republic of Thailand with El Presidente for life at the helm, it doesn't come as a shock.

And please, call me Thad if it makes you more comfortable.

[gand]

It is not really up to the Attorney General to judge if it is legal or not?

[Thaddeus]

It is not really up to the Attorney General to judge if it is legal or not?

Bingo.... but he is a suit with status, and what he says counts doesn't it?

To me and you it doesn't, but......

[dickyknee]

for what it is worth, where i come from, law is based in precedent not in parliament i.e.. law comes from the courts.

[Ricardo]

excellent that he stands up for what is right - Parliament was ELECTED let them do what they were elected to do without inference - if Thais do't like it they can VOTE at elections

And in the case of proposed-changes to the Constitution, the people can also vote in a Referendum, if they're given the chance to, as even the junta-appointed government of PM-Sorayud recognised.

But do the various groups now proposing change accept the need for a Referendum, at some point in the process, erm ...

[Orac]

excellent that he stands up for what is right - Parliament was ELECTED let them do what they were elected to do without inference - if Thais do't like it they can VOTE at elections

And in the case of proposed-changes to the Constitution, the people can also vote in a Referendum, if they're given the chance to, as even the junta-appointed government of PM-Sorayud recognised.

But do the various groups now proposing change accept the need for a Referendum, at some point in the process, erm ...

It seems fairly clear that a referendum will be required to give any amendments legal legitmacy - it certainly has been mentioned by senior government officials before including the PM:http://www.thaivisa....o-2007-charter/Obviously at this point it will be clear if any changes are being made to Article 2 which enshrines the role of the King and would be the time for the CC to act since the draft constitution will have been approved by parliament in some way and a clear infringement of the current constitution will be clear. To have acted now seems to be presumptuous and seems to be based on the assumption that the bill gives any CDA formed an ability to change Article 2 and therefore must be stopped rather than acting on what they do or propose.

Edited June 9, 2012 by Orac

[phiphidon]

Or because it's an argument between a pack of high-flying lawyers, and some of realise that the opinion of someone with little or no expertise in the field (including journalists) is worthless.

Please tell me where in that article there are inaccuracies regarding the current situation wrt the constitutional court acting against the interests of any future parliament if their version of events is upheld. In your opinion of course. If you bothered to read the side articles, with experts opinion, provided in that link you'll find it is, as I said a very succinct observation on the situation, the only problem being that it goes against your ingrained prejudice.

Repeat after me.The democrat party told me it's wrong, it's got to be wrong.

It is not a worthless document and is very much more informed than most of the "information" posted on here

http://asiancorrespo...utional-crisis/

Edited June 9, 2012 by phiphidon

[phiphidon]

Why are MP's around the world called law makers Thaddeus? If they don't make laws who does?

Sorry, I've been out for a few hours, partly to maintain a grip on my sanity, and partly to watch the semi finals at Roland Garros.

Please name me a couple of countries around the world that call MP's, or Politicians if you like, law makers.

If you exclude the countries that have names containing the words, peoples, democratic or republic, you will struggle to find one.

This term has been eased into the Thai mind set so that when it does turn in to the the People's Democratic Republic of Thailand with El Presidente for life at the helm, it doesn't come as a shock.

And please, call me Thad if it makes you more comfortable.

Sorry. I disagree with you,

Google lawmakers and see what you get in the way of responses - on the first page alone you will see references to MP's from America, Russia and Israel, America features heavily so you have to go further on to pick up the UK and others.

Or try another way, use any country lawmakers. I tried Indian lawmakers and come up with this, well it amused me,

"Three Indian lawmakers resigned Wednesday after they were filmed allegedly watching porn on a cell phone during a heated debate"

which was closely followed by a youtube link to a bunch of MP's fighting in the Indian Parliament.

Seems like it happens the world over...............

[phiphidon]

excellent that he stands up for what is right - Parliament was ELECTED let them do what they were elected to do without inference - if Thais do't like it they can VOTE at elections

And in the case of proposed-changes to the Constitution, the people can also vote in a Referendum, if they're given the chance to, as even the junta-appointed government of PM-Sorayud recognised.

But do the various groups now proposing change accept the need for a Referendum, at some point in the process, erm ...

It seems fairly clear that a referendum will be required to give any amendments legal legitmacy - it certainly has been mentioned by senior government officials before including the PM:http://www.thaivisa....o-2007-charter/Obviously at this point it will be clear if any changes are being made to Article 2 which enshrines the role of the King and would be the time for the CC to act since the draft constitution will have been approved by parliament in some way and a clear infringement of the current constitution will be clear. To have acted now seems to be presumptuous and seems to be based on the assumption that the bill gives any CDA formed an ability to change Article 2 and therefore must be stopped rather than acting on what they do or propose.

The House Speaker had this to say in September last year - so you can add a few more months on the target dates with the Dems, Yellow Shirts and CC delaying tactics ongoing.

A constitution drafting assembly will be formed next April and the new draft charter will be ready for a referendum in early 2013, said House Speaker Somsak Kiatsuranont.

http://asiancorrespondent.com/64211/what-of-puea-thai%e2%80%99s-plans-to-amend-the-constitution-an-update/

[Buchholz]

It is not a worthless document and is very much more informed than most of the "information" posted on here

http://asiancorrespo...utional-crisis/

Notwithstanding the lack of such basic "information" as who wrote it.

[phiphidon]

It is not a worthless document and is very much more informed than most of the "information" posted on here

http://asiancorrespo...utional-crisis/

Notwithstanding the lack of such basic "information" as who wrote it.

What does that mean?

[Thaddeus]

Why are MP's around the world called law makers Thaddeus? If they don't make laws who does?

Sorry, I've been out for a few hours, partly to maintain a grip on my sanity, and partly to watch the semi finals at Roland Garros.

Please name me a couple of countries around the world that call MP's, or Politicians if you like, law makers.

If you exclude the countries that have names containing the words, peoples, democratic or republic, you will struggle to find one.

This term has been eased into the Thai mind set so that when it does turn in to the the People's Democratic Republic of Thailand with El Presidente for life at the helm, it doesn't come as a shock.

And please, call me Thad if it makes you more comfortable.

Sorry. I disagree with you,

Google lawmakers and see what you get in the way of responses - on the first page alone you will see references to MP's from America, Russia and Israel, America features heavily so you have to go further on to pick up the UK and others.

Or try another way, use any country lawmakers. I tried Indian lawmakers and come up with this, well it amused me,

"Three Indian lawmakers resigned Wednesday after they were filmed allegedly watching porn on a cell phone during a heated debate"

which was closely followed by a youtube link to a bunch of MP's fighting in the Indian Parliament.

Seems like it happens the world over...............

Please.....

Yep, google lawmakers and there millions of results, and as you rightly say, featuring mainly America, but they are references to Congress, Senate and Judges, not MP's.

[phiphidon]

Sorry. I disagree with you,

Google lawmakers and see what you get in the way of responses - on the first page alone you will see references to MP's from America, Russia and Israel, America features heavily so you have to go further on to pick up the UK and others.

Or try another way, use any country lawmakers. I tried Indian lawmakers and come up with this, well it amused me,

"Three Indian lawmakers resigned Wednesday after they were filmed allegedly watching porn on a cell phone during a heated debate"

which was closely followed by a youtube link to a bunch of MP's fighting in the Indian Parliament.

Seems like it happens the world over...............

Please.....

Yep, google lawmakers and there millions of results, and as you rightly say, featuring mainly America, but they are references to Congress, Senate and Judges, not MP's.

Need I go on?

Russian Lawmakers Take Steps to Impose Steep Fines on Demonstrators

MOSCOW — Russia’s lower and upper houses of Parliament approved a draft law on Wednesday imposing steep fines on people who organize or take part in unsanctioned meetings, apparently in an attempt to bring down the curtain on the large antigovernment street protests that began six months ago.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/06/world/europe/russian-lawmakers-take-steps-to-impose-steep-fines-on-demonstrators.html

Japan's Lawmakers Oppose Noda's Push for Nuclear Restart

TOKYO—More than a third of Japan's ruling party lawmakers protested the premier's push to promptly restart the nation's nuclear reactors, threatening to undermine his leadership as he struggles to gain party support for another critical issue—the passage of a sales tax increase proposal this month.

A group of 117 Democratic Party of Japan lawmakers on Tuesday submitted to Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda a petition to exercise "greater caution" over restarting two reactors

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303296604577449831293050366.html

Israeli lawmakers defeat right-wing bid to save unauthorized settlements

JERUSALEM — Israeli lawmakers voted overwhelmingly Wednesday against a measure that would have legalized unauthorized Jewish settlements in the West Bank, including one that the Israeli Supreme Court has ordered to be partially demolished before July.

The vote in parliament increased tensions between Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the restive hard-right faction of his Likud party, members of which were vocal supporters of the initiative. Netanyahu, who recently emboldened his mandate by bringing the largest opposition party into his governing coalition, had urged the bill’s defeat and threatened cabinet members who voted for it with dismissal.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/israeli-lawmakers-defeat-right-wing-bid-to-save-unauthorized-settlements/2012/06/06/gJQAXgAqIV_story.html

[lannarebirth]

Sorry. I disagree with you,

Google lawmakers and see what you get in the way of responses - on the first page alone you will see references to MP's from America, Russia and Israel, America features heavily so you have to go further on to pick up the UK and others.

Or try another way, use any country lawmakers. I tried Indian lawmakers and come up with this, well it amused me,

"Three Indian lawmakers resigned Wednesday after they were filmed allegedly watching porn on a cell phone during a heated debate"

which was closely followed by a youtube link to a bunch of MP's fighting in the Indian Parliament.

Seems like it happens the world over...............

Please.....

Yep, google lawmakers and there millions of results, and as you rightly say, featuring mainly America, but they are references to Congress, Senate and Judges, not MP's.

Need I go on?

Russian Lawmakers Take Steps to Impose Steep Fines on Demonstrators

MOSCOW — Russia’s lower and upper houses of Parliament approved a draft law on Wednesday imposing steep fines on people who organize or take part in unsanctioned meetings, apparently in an attempt to bring down the curtain on the large antigovernment street protests that began six months ago.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/06/world/europe/russian-lawmakers-take-steps-to-impose-steep-fines-on-demonstrators.html

Japan's Lawmakers Oppose Noda's Push for Nuclear Restart

TOKYO—More than a third of Japan's ruling party lawmakers protested the premier's push to promptly restart the nation's nuclear reactors, threatening to undermine his leadership as he struggles to gain party support for another critical issue—the passage of a sales tax increase proposal this month.

A group of 117 Democratic Party of Japan lawmakers on Tuesday submitted to Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda a petition to exercise "greater caution" over restarting two reactors

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303296604577449831293050366.html

Israeli lawmakers defeat right-wing bid to save unauthorized settlements

JERUSALEM — Israeli lawmakers voted overwhelmingly Wednesday against a measure that would have legalized unauthorized Jewish settlements in the West Bank, including one that the Israeli Supreme Court has ordered to be partially demolished before July.

The vote in parliament increased tensions between Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the restive hard-right faction of his Likud party, members of which were vocal supporters of the initiative. Netanyahu, who recently emboldened his mandate by bringing the largest opposition party into his governing coalition, had urged the bill’s defeat and threatened cabinet members who voted for it with dismissal.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/israeli-lawmakers-defeat-right-wing-bid-to-save-unauthorized-settlements/2012/06/06/gJQAXgAqIV_story.html

Legislative bodies propose laws, craft laws, debate what should be included, what should not be in a law draft, OTHER government institutions ENACT and VET laws.

Conscientous and forward thinking law drafters seek opinions from high courts as a part of their process PRIOR to crafting legislation.

Edited June 9, 2012 by lannarebirth

[gand]

PTP, laws? We are the LAW.

[phiphidon]

It is not really up to the Attorney General to judge if it is legal or not?

Bingo.... but he is a suit with status, and what he says counts doesn't it?

To me and you it doesn't, but......

He is in the loop to carry out the investigation of the facts i.e whether an attempt to send a bill to be checked for constitutionality is frivilous or not.

[phiphidon]

Legislative bodies propose laws, craft laws, debate what should be included, what should not be in a law draft, OTHER government institutions ENACT and VET laws.

Conscientous and forward thinking law drafters seek opinions from high courts as a part of their process PRIOR to crafting legislation.

Different countries have different systems but generally there is a seperation of responsibility - this is what we are talking about despite the attractive option of sidelining the OP with discussions on whether an MP is a lawmaker or not. The CC have acted outside of their responsibility.

[phiphidon]

It is not a worthless document and is very much more informed than most of the "information" posted on here

http://asiancorrespo...utional-crisis/

Notwithstanding the lack of such basic "information" as who wrote it.

I'm sorry, I don't understand you, are you disagreeing with the information provided or the people who provided it, or both. Either way it would be useful if you could let me and the forum know why and then perhaps we could discuss your "viewpoint"

[gand]

PTP, the Constitutional Court's authority is what we say it is.

Edited June 9, 2012 by gand

[lannarebirth]

Legislative bodies propose laws, craft laws, debate what should be included, what should not be in a law draft, OTHER government institutions ENACT and VET laws.

Conscientous and forward thinking law drafters seek opinions from high courts as a part of their process PRIOR to crafting legislation.

Different countries have different systems but generally there is a seperation of responsibility - this is what we are talking about despite the attractive option of sidelining the OP with discussions on whether an MP is a lawmaker or not. The CC have acted outside of their responsibility.

Are yoiu saying it is the Attorney General's job to vet the constitutionality of all newly proposed legislation? If not, how has the CC acted outside their responsibility?

[Thaddeus]

Legislative bodies propose laws, craft laws, debate what should be included, what should not be in a law draft, OTHER government institutions ENACT and VET laws.

Conscientous and forward thinking law drafters seek opinions from high courts as a part of their process PRIOR to crafting legislation.

Quite.

Don..... this is how laws are made in Thailand.

Legislative power is exercised by the National Assembly, which consists of the House of Representatives and the Senate. The House of Representatives has 480 members who serve four year terms. 400 members are elected directly from 157 multi-representative constituencies. The remaining 80 members are elected from party lists, and are chosen on the basis of the proportion of votes cast by constituents in eight groupings of provinces. The Senate has 150 members who serve six year terms. Each of 76 provinces elects one member. The remaining 74 members are selected by the Senators Selective Committee from persons nominated by organizations in the academic, public, private and other sectors.

The constitution provides for the enactment of the following organic acts:

(1) Organic Act on Election of Members of the House of Representatives and Obtaining Senators;

(2) Organic Act on Election Commission;

(3) Organic Act on Political Parties;

(4) Organic Act on Referendum;

(5) Organic Act on Rules and Procedures of the Constitutional Court;

(6) Organic Act on Criminal Proceedings Against Persons Holding Political Positions;

(7) Organic Act on Ombudsmen;

(8) Organic Act on Counter Corruption; and

(9) Organic Act on State Audit.

An organic law bill may be introduced only by:

(1) the Council of Ministers;

(2) at least one-tenth of the members of the House of Representatives or one-tenth of the members of the National Assembly; or

(3) the Constitutional Court, the Supreme Court of Justice or an independent constitutional organ, where the President of such Court or independent organ has charge and control of the execution of such organic act.

A vote of the majority of members of each House of the National Assembly is required for the promulgation of any organic law.

A bill other than an organic law bill may be introduced by:

(1) the Council of Ministers;

(2) at least twenty members of the House of Representatives;

(3) a Court or an independent constitutional organ, but only in respect of a law that is concerned with institutional organization or a law the execution of which the President of such Court or such organ has charge and control; or

(4) persons having the right to vote of not less than ten thousand in number, on matters relating to rights and liberties or fundamental state policies;

Provided that bills introduced under (2), (3) or (4) that are money bills are also endorsed by the Prime Minister.

A vote of a majority of a quorum of each House of the National Assembly is required for the promulgation of any law other than an organic law.

The King's approval is required to promulgate any law; however, if the King does not approve a law, it may still be promulgated with the votes of at least two-thirds of the members of the National Assembly.

Not like this.....

Elected Suit 1 "I propose that on the second Tuesday of the month, everyone has to walk backwards all day"

Elected Suit 2 "Seconded"

Speaker "I call a vote, all in favour say Aye ...... the Ayes have it, do us a favour Judge old boy, be a good fellow and put that in the statute books will you, brandy anyone"

I do think however that the Dems jumped the gun too quickly on this one and created more than a fuss when there didn't need to be one at all.

(btw, Attorney General - criminal law - and even then he has no say in the making of them, just upholding them)

Edited June 9, 2012 by Thaddeus

[Buchholz]

It is not a worthless document and is very much more informed than most of the "information" posted on here

http://asiancorrespo...utional-crisis/

Notwithstanding the lack of such basic "information" as who wrote it.

What does that mean?

Who is the author of your link upon which you pontificate?

.

[phiphidon]

Are yoiu saying it is the Attorney General's job to vet the constitutionality of all newly proposed legislation? If not, how has the CC acted outside their responsibility?

The democratic party have opposed the proposed bill and have asked the CC to get directly involved, under Section 68. The CC have agreed to look at the constitutionality of the bill under Section 68 of the Constitution which is a catch all

“No person shall exercise the rights and liberties prescribed in the Constitution to overthrow the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of State under this Constitution or to acquire the power to rule the country by any means which is not in accordance with the modes provided in this Constitution“.

In the case where a person or a political party has committed the act under paragraph one, the person knowing of such act shall have the right to request the Attorney General to investigate the facts and submit a motion to the Constitutional Court for ordering cessation of such act without, however, prejudice to the institution of a criminal action against such person”.

According to CC's own web site the only person who can forward a bill for checking is the AG Attorney General. The CC are now saying that a bill can be sent to the CC for consideration via the AG or direct to them - how are they doing this? By reading the "and" in the 2nd paragraph of Section 68 above as "and / or".

If this is accepted it would mean that any political party could refer any bill to the CC by merely suspecting it of being to "overthrow the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of State under this Constitution" by invoking Section 68.

To any democratic mind this is the CC overstepping its boundaries by stepping out of the constitutional role into the legislative role. For example one of the bills the dems are blocking is the one needed to change the constitution to allow the formation of the CDA constitution drafting assembly. What on earth has this got to do with "overthrow the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of State under this Constitution". Nothing that's what.

Furthermore the dems are blocking the other bills purely because they think that the bill could lead to a breach of Section 68, even though the breaching of Section 68 is unconstitutional and the PTP have stated that they would not. Even if they did then the CC would throw it out under Section 68.

BP: This is the absurdity of the whole thing. Doing X is against the constitution. No one has done X. They are just suspicions that some people may do X. Court launches proactive inquiry into whether X may occur and mentions it is worried that there is no explicit mention that you cannot do X. This raises the question, why do you need an explicit provision not to do X if doing X is unconstitutional in the first place? What other provisions do we need saying explicitly what other illegal or unconstitutional conduct that the drafters will not do. This is aside from the issue that even if there was a proposal to do X it would have to go to parliament again and the court step in then…

http://asiancorrespo...utional-crisis/

It's all about propaganda and scaremongering by the dems.

[lannarebirth]

Are yoiu saying it is the Attorney General's job to vet the constitutionality of all newly proposed legislation? If not, how has the CC acted outside their responsibility?

The democratic party have opposed the proposed bill and have asked the CC to get directly involved, under Section 68. The CC have agreed to look at the constitutionality of the bill under Section 68 of the Constitution which is a catch all

“No person shall exercise the rights and liberties prescribed in the Constitution to overthrow the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of State under this Constitution or to acquire the power to rule the country by any means which is not in accordance with the modes provided in this Constitution“.

In the case where a person or a political party has committed the act under paragraph one, the person knowing of such act shall have the right to request the Attorney General to investigate the facts and submit a motion to the Constitutional Court for ordering cessation of such act without, however, prejudice to the institution of a criminal action against such person”.

According to CC's own web site the only person who can forward a bill for checking is the AG Attorney General. The CC are now saying that a bill can be sent to the CC for consideration via the AG or direct to them - how are they doing this? By reading the "and" in the 2nd paragraph of Section 68 above as "and / or".

If this is accepted it would mean that any political party could refer any bill to the CC by merely suspecting it of being to "overthrow the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of State under this Constitution" by invoking Section 68.

To any democratic mind this is the CC overstepping its boundaries by stepping out of the constitutional role into the legislative role. For example one of the bills the dems are blocking is the one needed to change the constitution to allow the formation of the CDA constitution drafting assembly. What on earth has this got to do with "overthrow the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of State under this Constitution". Nothing that's what.

Furthermore the dems are blocking the other bills purely because they think that the bill could lead to a breach of Section 68, even though the breaching of Section 68 is unconstitutional and the PTP have stated that they would not. Even if they did then the CC would throw it out under Section 68.

BP: This is the absurdity of the whole thing. Doing X is against the constitution. No one has done X. They are just suspicions that some people may do X. Court launches proactive inquiry into whether X may occur and mentions it is worried that there is no explicit mention that you cannot do X. This raises the question, why do you need an explicit provision not to do X if doing X is unconstitutional in the first place? What other provisions do we need saying explicitly what other illegal or unconstitutional conduct that the drafters will not do. This is aside from the issue that even if there was a proposal to do X it would have to go to parliament again and the court step in then…

http://asiancorrespo...utional-crisis/

It's all about propaganda and scaremongering by the dems.

It seems to me the constitution has been been misdrafted if it makes the attorney general the "gatekeeper" to decide what can and cannot be ruled on by the CC as to constitutionality. Thankfully most law (and constitutions) are construed as to "intention" rather than literally. Still I can see why all the hubbub for those who don't realize courts are all about exercising "judgement".

Edited June 9, 2012 by lannarebirth

[phiphidon]

Who is the author of your link upon which you pontificate?

.

First of all I wasn't aware of presenting the information I did in a pompous or dogmatic manner, but it wouldn't be you if you didn't have a dig at the messenger.

The Bangkok Pundit put together the article with inputs from the following people and media - Why do you ask? Do you doubt their credibility or knowledge compared to, say, some of our own home grown experts in Constitutional Law? - Good luck with that.

Assistant Rector at Thammasat University Prinya Thewanaruemitkul

Saksith Saiyasombut, A journalist in Hamburg

The 2007 Constitution

Worachet, one of the Nitirat academics

Constitution Court Website

Constitution Court judge, Jaran P, one of the 2007 Constitution drafters

Pimol Thampitakpong, a court spokesman

Former Senate Speaker Meechai Ruchupan

Constitution Court president Wasan Soypisudh

The additional side articles provide background from an even more diverse range of sources, if you read them that is?

[phiphidon]

It seems to me the constitution has been been misdrafted if it makes the attorney general the "gatekeeper" to decide what can and cannot be ruled on by the CC as to constitutionality. Thankfully most law (and constitutions) are construed as to "intention" rather than literally. Still I can see why all the hubbub for those who don't realize courts are all about exercising "judgement".

Well if you think that this arrangement of a legislatory and constitutional seperation of powers as OK, theres not much more to discuss with you

If this is accepted it would mean that any political party could refer any bill to the CC by merely suspecting it of being to "overthrow the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of State under this Constitution" by invoking Section 68.

[Buchholz]

Notwithstanding the lack of such basic "information" as who wrote it.

Who is the author of your link upon which you pontificate?

The Bangkok Pundit put together the article

Progress. Now then, for the third time, who is the author?

Does this author have a real name?

.

[lannarebirth]

It seems to me the constitution has been been misdrafted if it makes the attorney general the "gatekeeper" to decide what can and cannot be ruled on by the CC as to constitutionality. Thankfully most law (and constitutions) are construed as to "intention" rather than literally. Still I can see why all the hubbub for those who don't realize courts are all about exercising "judgement".

Well if you think that this arrangement of a legislatory and constitutional seperation of powers as OK, theres not much more to discuss with you

If this is accepted it would mean that any political party could refer any bill to the CC by merely suspecting it of being to "overthrow the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of State under this Constitution" by invoking Section 68.

As I say, I think it has been misdrafted. I DO think that any political party should have the ability to refer any piece of legislatiion to them for review. I also think they have the right to accept or not accept for review any apellation made to them if they feel it is not a matter for their court to rule on. I also think it is a smart policy for legisltors to submit proposed legislation to courts for judicial review and opinion PRIOR to attempting to pass said legislation into law. Saves a lot of trouble.

Edited June 9, 2012 by lannarebirth

[phiphidon]

Notwithstanding the lack of such basic "information" as who wrote it.

Who is the author of your link upon which you pontificate?

The Bangkok Pundit put together the article

Progress. Now then, for the third time, who is the author?

Does this author have a real name?

.

If you had used english in the first place I wouldn't have needed to ask you to clarify your question.

Most people who are interested in Thai politics or even in reading the links provided would have discovered that Bankok Pundit is a pen name for a Blog "on issues related to Thai politics and primarily the situation in the Deep South".

The author is not named but pulls together sources from wherever and comments on Thai politics etc. The Bangkok Pundit publishes articles on the Asian Correspondent website.

As far as the article I linked is concerned it was written by BP but pulls together the comments/quotes from the various people/media you removed from my post to produce that article.

Due to its variety of sources, imo it is probably one of the more trustworthy english language sources out there. At least the sources are named and linked as opposed to the Nations and others habits of basing their stories on a twitter link or "an unamed source says"

Edited June 9, 2012 by phiphidon

[Buchholz]

The author is not named

At least the sources are named and linked as opposed to the Nations and others habits of basing their stories on a twitter link or "an unamed source says"

As they are both unnamed...

perhaps The Nation has used Bangkok Pundit as one of their unnamed sources..... perhaps even one of the dozens of times you and tlansford have boringly decried the use of an unnamed source at The Nation.

No one who would know.

That's the tangled web of pontificating with some unnamed sources and at the same time maligning other unnamed sources .

If the issue is the sources that Bangkok Pundit has cited, then there's no reason not to simply quote those articles directly from their publishing site or paraphrase the article directly in the case of un-quotable sources. There's no reason to refer to his blog's comments. If you wish to discuss the postings of an anonymous internet poster, there's opportunity to do so on his own forum/blog.

.

Edited June 9, 2012 by Buchholz