Charter Amendment Is Legal: Attorney General

[binjalin]

this could all turn very, very ugly - how the CC have the nerve I just can't fathom and they are surprised at the uproar? Parliament should have the right to discuss anything they wish without some hiso un-elected CC trying to block them - it's outrageous!

[binjalin]

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.

excellent! perfect analysis

[gand]

TIT and no matter what the PTP thinks, they cannot do anything they want, they still have to work within the rules/laws of THAILAND.

[Moruya]

this could all turn very, very ugly - how the CC have the nerve I just can't fathom and they are surprised at the uproar? Parliament should have the right to discuss anything they wish without some hiso un-elected CC trying to block them - it's outrageous!

All it needs is a few good men......

[phiphidon]

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.

.

You don't like what you're hearing so you're trying to get it banned as a source with your typical veiled whining to the Mods. Carry on buchholz you're doing a great job.

[OzMick]

this could all turn very, very ugly - how the CC have the nerve I just can't fathom and they are surprised at the uproar? Parliament should have the right to discuss anything they wish without some hiso un-elected CC trying to block them - it's outrageous!

Is the Supreme court elected in your country?

[OzMick]

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

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

I believe there were 5 representations presented to the CC from concerned parties including senators. Why do you specifically attribute this to the domocrats?

[binjalin]

so the British Parliament broke the law because it changed the law to allow females to ascend to the throne?

this is absurd - they are 'lawmakers' they can, and do, change, amend and make new laws - voted on by elected persons called MP's AKA 'lawmakers'

[binjalin]

this could all turn very, very ugly - how the CC have the nerve I just can't fathom and they are surprised at the uproar? Parliament should have the right to discuss anything they wish without some hiso un-elected CC trying to block them - it's outrageous!

Is the Supreme court elected in your country?

Read and learn:

Due to the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty, the court is limited in its powers of judicial review, unlike the constitutional and supreme courts of some other countries. This means that it cannot overturn any primary legislation made by Parliament.

[Thaddeus]

this could all turn very, very ugly - how the CC have the nerve I just can't fathom and they are surprised at the uproar? Parliament should have the right to discuss anything they wish without some hiso un-elected CC trying to block them - it's outrageous!

Is the Supreme court elected in your country?

Read and learn:

Due to the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty, the court is limited in its powers of judicial review, unlike the constitutional and supreme courts of some other countries. This means that it cannot overturn any primary legislation made by Parliament.

From wiki eh, not only can that damage the veracity of an article to begin with, that one is talking about the UK in the main, not Thailand.

Edited June 9, 2012 by Thaddeus

[binjalin]

this could all turn very, very ugly - how the CC have the nerve I just can't fathom and they are surprised at the uproar? Parliament should have the right to discuss anything they wish without some hiso un-elected CC trying to block them - it's outrageous!

Is the Supreme court elected in your country?

Read and learn:

Due to the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty, the court is limited in its powers of judicial review, unlike the constitutional and supreme courts of some other countries. This means that it cannot overturn any primary legislation made by Parliament.

From wiki eh, not only can that damage the veracity of an article to begin with, that one is talking about the UK in the main, not Thailand.

that's what I was asked? anyway the principle stands - in a democracy Parliament has to be the supreme authority on laws as they are elected by the citizens. We already know that is not the case here in Thailand and that, in a nutshell, is the problem that is faced now.

Edited June 9, 2012 by binjalin

[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.

You don't like what you're hearing so you're trying to get it banned as a source with your typical veiled whining to the Mods. Carry on buchholz you're doing a great job.

I haven't said one word about "liking what you're hearing". We haven't even gotten past the most basic of "information" you were speaking of earlier to even know who is writing on the issue.

I'm not trying to "ban" anything, just trying to keep things in perspective such that, for you, unnamed sources are to be ridiculed one day and harkened as the great truth on the next.

I'll leave your moderation issues between you and the mods.

.

[Thaddeus]

Read and learn:

Due to the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty, the court is limited in its powers of judicial review, unlike the constitutional and supreme courts of some other countries. This means that it cannot overturn any primary legislation made by Parliament.

From wiki eh, not only can that damage the veracity of an article to begin with, that one is talking about the UK in the main, not Thailand.

that's what I was asked? anyway the principle stands - in a democracy Parliament has to be the supreme authority on laws as they are elected by the citizens. We already know that is not the case here in Thailand and that, in a nutshell, is the problem that is faced now.

Nah, sorry, and even if we restrict that to within the set of articles you post from wiki.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_Kingdom

Due to the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty, the court is limited in its powers of judicial review, unlike the constitutional and supreme courts of some other countries. This means that it cannot overturn any primary legislation made by Parliament.^[3]However it can overturn secondary legislation if, for example, that legislation is found to be ultra vires of the powers in primary legislation allowing it to be made. Furthermore, under section 4 of the Human Rights Act 1998, the court may make a declaration of incompatibility which means that it believes that the legislation subject to the declaration is incompatible with one of the rights of the European Convention on Human Rights and such a declaration can apply equally to primary and secondary legislation. The legislation is not overturned by the declaration but powers under section 10 of the act are triggered to allow ministers to amend the legislation by statutory instrument to remove the incompatibility.^[4]

Which in essence means that if Parliament tries to change one of the fundamental laws of the land, the Supreme Court can knock it back. That is why in the UK the Parliament doesn't even try to pass legislation that would do that.

But that is the UK and not Thailand, the UK doesn't need that many checks and balances, Thailand, has many more, because it needs them.

[OzMick]

this could all turn very, very ugly - how the CC have the nerve I just can't fathom and they are surprised at the uproar? Parliament should have the right to discuss anything they wish without some hiso un-elected CC trying to block them - it's outrageous!

Is the Supreme court elected in your country?

Read and learn:

Due to the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty, the court is limited in its powers of judicial review, unlike the constitutional and supreme courts of some other countries. This means that it cannot overturn any primary legislation made by Parliament.

What has that to do with the question? And what is the source of your irrelevance?

[binjalin]

Which in essence means that if Parliament tries to change one of the fundamental laws of the land, the Supreme Court can knock it back. That is why in the UK the Parliament doesn't even try to pass legislation that would do that.

But that is the UK and not Thailand, the UK doesn't need that many checks and balances, Thailand, has many more, because it needs them.

nah... but I agree Thailand needs them too but you are wrong to say Thailand 'has many more' it has nowhere near enough and a few guys sitting somewhere should not be deciding what elected officials can and cannot debate. I made my point about the British Parliament amending the law to allow females to ascend to the throne - nothing more dramatic than that! changing 100s of years of tradition you think a few guys should 'get together' and stop that type of debate and progress lor

[binjalin]

this could all turn very, very ugly - how the CC have the nerve I just can't fathom and they are surprised at the uproar? Parliament should have the right to discuss anything they wish without some hiso un-elected CC trying to block them - it's outrageous!

Is the Supreme court elected in your country?

Read and learn:

Due to the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty, the court is limited in its powers of judicial review, unlike the constitutional and supreme courts of some other countries. This means that it cannot overturn any primary legislation made by Parliament.

What has that to do with the question? And what is the source of your irrelevance?

you mean the same 'irrelevance' of your 'Supreme Court in your country' question?

[OzMick]

Is the Supreme court elected in your country?

Read and learn:

Due to the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty, the court is limited in its powers of judicial review, unlike the constitutional and supreme courts of some other countries. This means that it cannot overturn any primary legislation made by Parliament.

What has that to do with the question? And what is the source of your irrelevance?

you mean the same 'irrelevance' of your 'Supreme Court in your country' question?

Well you chose to reply. If you nothing to say, why bother?

BTW wiki referring to the UK is really on target, especially as you attempted to disguise that fact,

[phiphidon]

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.

You don't like what you're hearing so you're trying to get it banned as a source with your typical veiled whining to the Mods. Carry on buchholz you're doing a great job.

I haven't said one word about "liking what you're hearing". We haven't even gotten past the most basic of "information" you were speaking of earlier to even know who is writing on the issue.

I'm not trying to "ban" anything, just trying to keep things in perspective such that, for you, unnamed sources are to be ridiculed one day and harkened as the great truth on the next.

I'll leave your moderation issues between you and the mods.

.

When you see that article written by Bangkok Pundit are all the sources he/she uses named and linked - yes they are. So what kind of perspective are you keeping when comparing unnamed sources in a newspaper to an unnamed author who uses named and linked sources when writing an article?

"If you wish to discuss the postings of an anonymous internet poster, there's opportunity to do so on his own forum/blog". Was this just an opinion or a request? Either way I'm not taking any notice of your suggestion especially as there is no forum to do so.

While we're on the subject of suggestions maybe it would be a good thing if you read some of the links people go to the trouble of providing - you may learn something. The Asian Correspondent site would be a good start.

[GentlemanJim]

What is quite extraordinary in all this is that the Attorney General has opened his mouth in public. He may well believe the charter amendments to be legal, but the Constitutional court ordering a delay on the voting under article 68 is not Illegal, according to the constitution.. So the Attorney General should have kept his mouth shut. The question is, why didn't he? because to do so would have been the norm. Who influenced his decision to speak?

Edited June 9, 2012 by GentlemanJim

[Thaddeus]

Which in essence means that if Parliament tries to change one of the fundamental laws of the land, the Supreme Court can knock it back. That is why in the UK the Parliament doesn't even try to pass legislation that would do that.

But that is the UK and not Thailand, the UK doesn't need that many checks and balances, Thailand, has many more, because it needs them.

nah... but I agree Thailand needs them too but you are wrong to say Thailand 'has many more' it has nowhere near enough

But, first you started out by saying that elected officials have supreme power, but now you say it doesn't have enough checks and balances.... which one do you want to run with?

[Thaddeus]

You don't like what you're hearing so you're trying to get it banned as a source with your typical veiled whining to the Mods. Carry on buchholz you're doing a great job.

I haven't said one word about "liking what you're hearing". We haven't even gotten past the most basic of "information" you were speaking of earlier to even know who is writing on the issue.

I'm not trying to "ban" anything, just trying to keep things in perspective such that, for you, unnamed sources are to be ridiculed one day and harkened as the great truth on the next.

I'll leave your moderation issues between you and the mods.

.

When you see that article written by Bangkok Pundit are all the sources he/she uses named and linked - yes they are.

Ok Don, I just read that article again, it is very well written by the way, and I read all the embedded links, took some time.

Bar one there isn't a single link to any authors name, one link even leads back to another unnamed author in the same publication.

The only name of a writer I could see is Saksith Saiyasombut, who is he then? he is just a blogger (in Hamburg no less) with a rather one sided opinion and here is his blog.http://saiyasombut.wordpress.com/

Not really an expert in Thai law, or any law for that matter.

But I'm sure his opinion counts for something.

The bottom line is the AG is a toothless tiger, that is why Senate didn't mind appointing a mate of Khun T. he is A route to the CC but he isn't THE only route, he can be bypassed quite easily, until he or his department said anything, he wasn't even mentioned by anyone, anywhere.

His primary role is to make sure that the laws laid down in the constitution, centred on the criminal laws are enforced, is he going to start soon, his previous track record would say not.

[phiphidon]

I don't have any problem with the names and sources he lists in his article, I'm referring to his own comments following them.... which, as he's an anonymous internet poster, bare little difference to the unnamed sources that you criticize in other news sources.

As for discussing another forum/blog entries here, it's an opinion that it's unnecessary and not beneficial. He provides the opportunity to provide feedback on his own forum/blog opinions in the form of reader's comments. There's essentially no difference between how that works and how this forum works.

The advantage of moving your discussion on his comments to over at his forum/blog, is that he can answer any questions or comments on the issues raised, which doesn't seem viable here.

Perhaps you could PM him and find out his hesitancy to post here.

http://www.thaivisa....6386-bkkpundit/

but I suspect the answer would be because he has his own forum/blog.

.

There is no forum for Bangkok Pundit.

"I don't have any problem with the names and sources he lists in his article, I'm referring to his own comments following them.... which, as he's an anonymous internet poster, bare little difference to the unnamed sources that you criticize in other news sources."

The Nation has posted articles based entirely on "unknown sources". I criticise the veracity of those articles yet you are quite happy to discuss those articles within this forum.

I post a link to an unknown but respected and frequently quoted author that uses named sources and provides links and you compare that to how this forum works ?? When have posts in this forum been quoted by ABC, Asia Times, Bangkok Post, BBC, Christian Science Monitor, Deutsche Presse-Agentur, IPS, Malaysia Star, NPR, Prachatai, Straits Times, The Age, The Australian, and The Guardian?

I will continue to post links to Asian Correspondent articles and other sources.

You of course are quite welcome to carry on using the nation, tulsahit tweets and zimbio.com as the font of all knowledge.

[binjalin]

Well you chose to reply. If you nothing to say, why bother?

BTW wiki referring to the UK is really on target, especially as you attempted to disguise that fact,

I was not disguising it - why say that? you ASKED what about my country's supreme court and I gave you the answer (for the UK) you really are paranoid dude

[binjalin]

Which in essence means that if Parliament tries to change one of the fundamental laws of the land, the Supreme Court can knock it back. That is why in the UK the Parliament doesn't even try to pass legislation that would do that.

But that is the UK and not Thailand, the UK doesn't need that many checks and balances, Thailand, has many more, because it needs them.

nah... but I agree Thailand needs them too but you are wrong to say Thailand 'has many more' it has nowhere near enough

But, first you started out by saying that elected officials have supreme power, but now you say it doesn't have enough checks and balances.... which one do you want to run with?

you missed the point - of course there are not enough checks and balances here in Thailand even in day-to-day life hence the rampant corruption. However MP's are elected and must be the final 'frontier' not a few guys who are unelected blocking democracy. Anyway whatever we say here the Thai people will not put up with it because they see through it AND it is clear (if you read the law) that parties have no right to go straight to the guys at the CC.

[phiphidon]

Ok Don, I just read that article again, it is very well written by the way, and I read all the embedded links, took some time.

Bar one there isn't a single link to any authors name, one link even leads back to another unnamed author in the same publication.

The only name of a writer I could see is Saksith Saiyasombut, who is he then? he is just a blogger (in Hamburg no less) with a rather one sided opinion and here is his blog.http://saiyasombut.wordpress.com/

Not really an expert in Thai law, or any law for that matter.

But I'm sure his opinion counts for something.

The bottom line is the AG is a toothless tiger, that is why Senate didn't mind appointing a mate of Khun T. he is A route to the CC but he isn't THE only route, he can be bypassed quite easily, until he or his department said anything, he wasn't even mentioned by anyone, anywhere.

His primary role is to make sure that the laws laid down in the constitution, centred on the criminal laws are enforced, is he going to start soon, his previous track record would say not.

How many times have I said the author is anonymous - it doesn't matter if he / she is anonymous, so are you, so is everybody else who writes on this forum, but you'll agree with certain people on here won't you?

His/her comments have been quoted in various well regarded media as I listed unlike any of the "experts" on here. He/she always names sources when quoting (something the nation doesn't always do.

You picked up on one source , a journalist based in Hamburg but failed to mention one of the original constitution writers, members of the senate past and present, the constitution court president, the constitution itself etc etc - why was that I wonder, couldn't be trying to belittle the sources could you?

And where does this "mate of Khun T" come from - this same AG was part of the government team of lawyers that dissolved the TRT and PPP.

The AG is mentioned on the Constitution Court Website page relating to the hows and whys of approaching the CC as the only route to go through in several different scenarios not just the one involving Article 68 - go to this site

http://asiancorrespondent.com/83703/constitution-court-pushes-thailand-towards-a-potential-constitutional-crisis/,

click on the CC PDF link and see how many times the AG is mentioned as the route through which to go - the PDF is in Thai but it is easy to work out the thai for AG, it's the one marked many times in the centre column.

[MikeOboe57]

Ok Don, I just read that article again, it is very well written by the way, and I read all the embedded links, took some time.

Bar one there isn't a single link to any authors name, one link even leads back to another unnamed author in the same publication.

The only name of a writer I could see is Saksith Saiyasombut, who is he then? he is just a blogger (in Hamburg no less) with a rather one sided opinion and here is his blog.http://saiyasombut.wordpress.com/

Not really an expert in Thai law, or any law for that matter.

But I'm sure his opinion counts for something.

The bottom line is the AG is a toothless tiger, that is why Senate didn't mind appointing a mate of Khun T. he is A route to the CC but he isn't THE only route, he can be bypassed quite easily, until he or his department said anything, he wasn't even mentioned by anyone, anywhere.

His primary role is to make sure that the laws laid down in the constitution, centred on the criminal laws are enforced, is he going to start soon, his previous track record would say not.

How many times have I said the author is anonymous - it doesn't matter if he / she is anonymous, so are you, so is everybody else who writes on this forum, but you'll agree with certain people on here won't you?

His/her comments have been quoted in various well regarded media as I listed unlike any of the "experts" on here. He/she always names sources when quoting (something the nation doesn't always do.

You picked up on one source , a journalist based in Hamburg but failed to mention one of the original constitution writers, members of the senate past and present, the constitution court president, the constitution itself etc etc - why was that I wonder, couldn't be trying to belittle the sources could you?

And where does this "mate of Khun T" come from - this same AG was part of the government team of lawyers that dissolved the TRT and PPP.

The AG is mentioned on the Constitution Court Website page relating to the hows and whys of approaching the CC as the only route to go through in several different scenarios not just the one involving Article 68 - go to this site

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

click on the CC PDF link and see how many times the AG is mentioned as the route through which to go - the PDF is in Thai but it is easy to work out the thai for AG, it's the one marked many times in the centre column.

It looks like your stressing of the AG as the only route to the CC is because he thinks the charter change is legal. If he had condoned the CC's action you would have told us that he was appointed by Abhisit and is therefore biased.

[OzMick]

Well you chose to reply. If you nothing to say, why bother?

BTW wiki referring to the UK is really on target, especially as you attempted to disguise that fact,

I was not disguising it - why say that? you ASKED what about my country's supreme court and I gave you the answer (for the UK) you really are paranoid dude

Here is your entire reply to my question "Is the supreme Court elected in your country?"

"Read and learn:

Due to the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty, the court is limited in its powers of judicial review, unlike the constitutional and supreme courts of some other countries. This means that it cannot overturn any primary legislation made by Parliament."

No source. No mention of the UK. No mention of how the supreme court is elected in ANY country. No indication given that the quote is NOT referring to Thailand. So you just happened to throw in a quote about the UK totally irrelevant to the question.

If you have nothing to say about my post, please refrain from replying, especially with material I believe was intended to mislead.

Yes, I maintain a healthy degree of paranoia, but just because you're paranoid doesn't mean some bastard isn't out to get you.

[Scott]

A series of off-topic posts have been deleted. Stay on the topic of the thread. Further comments will result in suspensions.

[phiphidon]

It looks like your stressing of the AG as the only route to the CC is because he thinks the charter change is legal. If he had condoned the CC's action you would have told us that he was appointed by Abhisit and is therefore biased.

No, it's because that's what the whole of this thread is about though it seems to have escaped you. Charters can be changed at any time as long as they follow the correct procedures (for example Abhisit made a charter change to allow for the change from multi seat to single seat constituencies).

However with this one the dems have said that the charter change may result in the overthrow of the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of State under this Constitution, using Article 68 of the Constitution, which is plainly ridiculous as this bill is only to change that part of the charter that needs to be changed before the constitution drafting assembly can be formed.

However because they have done that the bill should have been passed to the AG for investigation before the CC ruling it unconstitutional or not. The CC have taken the complaint from the dems, directly bypassing the AG and therefore trespassing on the legislative side of the house. That is what the argument is about.

Of course you would have known that if you had read the link/s.

[binjalin]

It looks like your stressing of the AG as the only route to the CC is because he thinks the charter change is legal. If he had condoned the CC's action you would have told us that he was appointed by Abhisit and is therefore biased.

No, it's because that's what the whole of this thread is about though it seems to have escaped you. Charters can be changed at any time as long as they follow the correct procedures (for example Abhisit made a charter change to allow for the change from multi seat to single seat constituencies).

However with this one the dems have said that the charter change may result in the overthrow of the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of State under this Constitution, using Article 68 of the Constitution, which is plainly ridiculous as this bill is only to change that part of the charter that needs to be changed before the constitution drafting assembly can be formed.

However because they have done that the bill should have been passed to the AG for investigation before the CC ruling it unconstitutional or not. The CC have taken the complaint from the dems, directly bypassing the AG and therefore trespassing on the legislative side of the house. That is what the argument is about.

Of course you would have known that if you had read the link/s.

this IS the point - the CC have ruled on something that has not happened. I don't know of ANY democracy that has EVER had parts of the framework censoring another part - and that before anything has happened! Amazing Thailand