Charter Amendment Is Legal: Attorney General

[Thaddeus]

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.

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.

http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90001/90777/90851/6963801.html

I don't remember the AOG even making a squeak back in April 2010.

Why was that I wonder.

[rubl]

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

Amazing TV posters!

The CC hasn't ruled yet

[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

Amazing TV posters!

The CC hasn't ruled yet

no but they have stopped DEBATE - you know that strange thing that happens in Parliaments?

[MikeOboe57]

Amazing TV posters!

The CC hasn't ruled yet

no but they have stopped DEBATE - you know that strange thing that happens in Parliaments?

I thought the Speaker stopped the debate.

[gand]

"Charter Amendment Is Legal: Attorney General"

Merely his opinion, since he is not a Judge on the Constitutional Court, it doesn't mean much.

[Thaddeus]

Amazing TV posters!

The CC hasn't ruled yet

no but they have stopped DEBATE - you know that strange thing that happens in Parliaments?

I thought the Speaker stopped the debate.

He did.

[ThaiOats]

According to the Democrats and parties that filed the complaint to the AG, there has been no progress in the last two months so they opted to go directly to the CC. They also mentioned that the AG did not investigate or interviewed anyone relating to the matter and just made an arbitrary decision after the CC announced a postponement.

One of the arguments cited by the PTP government about the CC being biased is that Surapong once filed a complaint to the CC about dissolution of the Democrat party. The CC declined to accept the complaint because it had nothing to do with the constitution unlike the reconciliation bill which MAY have clauses against the constitution.

Don't shoot the messenger, I got this from BlueSky Channel. I haven't been able to watch any Voice TV programming on this matter so I can't bring up their arguments.

[rubl]

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

Amazing TV posters!

The CC hasn't ruled yet

no but they have stopped DEBATE - you know that strange thing that happens in Parliaments?

'no, but'? In other words your "the CC have ruled on something that has not happened" was incorrect

[ttelise]

Current AG was appointed when Democrats were in power.

Question - does an AG have the right to rule what's legal and what's not? I understand that he can decide if there's a case to be made, not the legality itself.

Absolutely not. Courts also cannot legislate or create constitutional laws or amendments. Courts can only interpret constitutional mandates passed by legislature and approved by a vote of the people. Courts may find provisions or amendments unconstitutional. AG cannot even do that.

AGs have no power as to the law. The AG can issue advisory opinions to certain agencies indicating what the AG thinks the state of the law may be so the agencies under his direction and control act in a consistent manner. Thus is only done when laws or new or courts have yet to clarify something causing confusion. The AG, however, can be wrong and has no influence on the courts.

AG really just manages attorneys working for the government in the various departments or branches such as tax, labor, criminal, environmental and etc. The AG may also lobby for bills or changes in the law to the legislature, but they do not have to listen. AGs make very little decisions about criminal prosecutions unless it is very high profile case and still generally approves the decisions of his DAs on those matters.

The vast majority of what AGs do is administrative in nature. I clerked for an appellate judge in the mid 90s who was appointed AG by the Supreme Court in 98ish. I then worked for a Supreme Court justice and I never even saw him argue a case before the Supreme Court. Always some lower level lawyers made the appearances.

Edited June 10, 2012 by ttelise

[Lite Beer]

A post quoting from Bangkok post has been removed.