Experts Question Court Decision Over Charter Amendment Bill

[webfact]

Experts question court decision over charter amendment bill

The Nation

BANGKOK: -- Legal experts yesterday questioned the Constitution Court's decision to review petitions filed against the proponents of a new constitution.

They said the court had no power to rule on the case or order the Parliament to suspend voting in its final reading of the Constitution amendment bill.

Five separate groups filed petitions with the court accusing the Cabinet, the coalition Pheu Thai and Chart Thai Pattana parties, and their politicians of attempting to overthrow the country's political system by proposing bills that allow the drafting of a new constitution.

Somchai Preechasilapakul, from the Law Faculty of Chiang Mai University, said he wondered if the judiciary had any power over the legislature, the power of which is connected to the public.

He said that though the court decision to accept the petition would ease the political pressure, the root cause of the conflict would still exist.

Chulalongkorn University law lecturer Manit Jumpa also said he disagreed with the court's decision to accept the petitions, adding that the groups should have filed their case with public prosecutors and that the court had far too many cases already.

Mano Thongpan, an academic on law who is formerly an executive of the Law Society of Thailand, said that he did not think this case required urgent attention from the Constitution Court.

"There is no reason for this case to be urgent. The court needs information from the other side before it issues any orders," he said. "Also, the court's order for the Parliament to suspend its legislative process is not supported by any law."

The law experts were speaking at a seminar entitled "Who has the Power of Legislating the Constitution?" held at the Siam City Hotel.

Political scientist Likhit Dhiravegin, speaking at the same seminar, also questioned the court citing Article 68 for its decision to accept the petitions directly from the people, not a state agency.

Meanwhile, deputy Senate speaker Nikom Wairatpanit said yesterday that the Constitution Court's order suspending the legislative process by citing a constitutional clause was unprecedented.

When speaking on "Constitution Court and Power under Article 68", he said it appeared the court had made an inaccurate interpretation of the constitutional clause when deciding to accept the case for judicial review.

"MPs and senators have the power of amending the Constitution. There are no reasons to postpone the amending of the Constitution. If the court order is followed, it would also be against the principle of the law," he said.

-- The Nation 2012-06-08

[tragickingdom]

Anyone with half a brain knows that the Constitutional Mock court has no power to rule. However it is to satisfy the neo fascists of the PAD. Fascists being it in brown or in yellow shirts are dangerous and have nothing with democracy. They hate it.

[OzMick]

Anyone with half a brain knows that the Constitutional Mock court has no power to rule. However it is to satisfy the neo fascists of the PAD. Fascists being it in brown or in yellow shirts are dangerous and have nothing with democracy. They hate it.

"Anyone with half a brain knows......" QED

[Ferangled]

Anyone with half a brain knows that the Constitutional Mock court has no power to rule. However it is to satisfy the neo fascists of the PAD. Fascists being it in brown or in yellow shirts are dangerous and have nothing with democracy. They hate it.

"Anyone with half a brain knows......" QED

The political agenda of Thailand’s PAD (People’s Alliance for Democracy) yellow shirt movement has always been explicit – fascism. In fact, they’ve publicly screamed their profoundly anti-democratic agenda so many times it would need a willful and deliberate act to ignore the explicit neo-fascism of the PAD. From wanting to “destroy democracy” through to “shutting down the country” to “cleansing Thailand of our enemies,” the PAD’s agenda is very clear and has been since at least 2008.

PAD thugs want dictatorship to replace democracy

So what kind of person or group would refuse to accurately describe the PAD as what they are?

First of all, it wasn’t the Hong Kong-based, entirely independent and highly respected Asian Human Rights Commission. This is what they said about the PAD when they shut down Bangkok’s airports a few years ago:

They spring from a far-right ideology that has for decades driven successive military-bureaucratic administrations in Thailand, which dramatic changes to political and social life of the last two decades [aka democracy] have increasingly threatened.

Some commentators and opponents of the alliance [PAD] have described its agenda as fascist. This is not an exaggeration.

Nor was it Mithran Somasundrum in The Guardian who wrote a piece entitled “Shuffling towards fascism”. In this article Mithran examines comments by Thanong Khantong, the Nation’s editor, who supported the PAD’s 2008 protests and which Mithran feels exemplify the PAD’s political programme.

Thanong writes – “I don’t see Thailand backtracking against the democratic process … It is a joke to believe that the rural voters love or have a better understanding of democracy than the Bangkok middle class … The foreign media and foreign experts must stop distorting Thai politics with their convenient definition of democracy,” From earlier in the article: “A country can survive without democracy but it can’t survive without law” … “The politicians are the main problem and a liability in our democracy.”

The last two quotes are what I mean by fascism, since I don’t know what else you’d call it.

It is not possible to have contempt for democracy without first having contempt for people, since democracy is, after all, meant to deliver the people’s will. Likewise, contempt for people, or at least for a significant section of a country’s population, will eventually lead to a corroding of democracy. That corrosion is occurring now, and, here, at this moment in time, is what contempt gets you.

So there we have it – one of the region’s leading human rights groups calling the PAD fascist and one of the planet’s leading English-language newspapers joining in. Furthermore, we should never forget the very words that spill so readily from the PAD’s own lips.

Yet, strangely, in the last few days, as the PAD attempt to storm the Thai Parliament, once again threatening extreme violence in their avowed agenda to destroy Thailand’s struggling democracy, some people have chosen to completely ignore the evidence and stick to turning a blind eye to fascism.

[OzMick]

Anyone with half a brain knows that the Constitutional Mock court has no power to rule. However it is to satisfy the neo fascists of the PAD. Fascists being it in brown or in yellow shirts are dangerous and have nothing with democracy. They hate it.

"Anyone with half a brain knows......" QED

The political agenda of Thailand’s PAD (People’s Alliance for Democracy) yellow shirt movement has always been explicit – fascism. In fact, they’ve publicly screamed their profoundly anti-democratic agenda so many times it would need a willful and deliberate act to ignore the explicit neo-fascism of the PAD. From wanting to “destroy democracy” through to “shutting down the country” to “cleansing Thailand of our enemies,” the PAD’s agenda is very clear and has been since at least 2008.

PAD thugs want dictatorship to replace democracy

So what kind of person or group would refuse to accurately describe the PAD as what they are?

First of all, it wasn’t the Hong Kong-based, entirely independent and highly respected Asian Human Rights Commission. This is what they said about the PAD when they shut down Bangkok’s airports a few years ago:

They spring from a far-right ideology that has for decades driven successive military-bureaucratic administrations in Thailand, which dramatic changes to political and social life of the last two decades [aka democracy] have increasingly threatened.

Some commentators and opponents of the alliance [PAD] have described its agenda as fascist. This is not an exaggeration.

Nor was it Mithran Somasundrum in The Guardian who wrote a piece entitled “Shuffling towards fascism”. In this article Mithran examines comments by Thanong Khantong, the Nation’s editor, who supported the PAD’s 2008 protests and which Mithran feels exemplify the PAD’s political programme.

Thanong writes – “I don’t see Thailand backtracking against the democratic process … It is a joke to believe that the rural voters love or have a better understanding of democracy than the Bangkok middle class … The foreign media and foreign experts must stop distorting Thai politics with their convenient definition of democracy,” From earlier in the article: “A country can survive without democracy but it can’t survive without law” … “The politicians are the main problem and a liability in our democracy.”

The last two quotes are what I mean by fascism, since I don’t know what else you’d call it.

It is not possible to have contempt for democracy without first having contempt for people, since democracy is, after all, meant to deliver the people’s will. Likewise, contempt for people, or at least for a significant section of a country’s population, will eventually lead to a corroding of democracy. That corrosion is occurring now, and, here, at this moment in time, is what contempt gets you.

So there we have it – one of the region’s leading human rights groups calling the PAD fascist and one of the planet’s leading English-language newspapers joining in. Furthermore, we should never forget the very words that spill so readily from the PAD’s own lips.

Yet, strangely, in the last few days, as the PAD attempt to storm the Thai Parliament, once again threatening extreme violence in their avowed agenda to destroy Thailand’s struggling democracy, some people have chosen to completely ignore the evidence and stick to turning a blind eye to fascism.

PAD is a minor force in elections in Thailand, they have split from their own party and do not run candidates. I share some common goals and attitudes with them, the main one being intense dislike of a family who have plundered so much from people who have so little.

The fact that many in Thailand are willing to turn a blind eye to that theft because they believe it benefits them does nothing to reduce my feelings.

In a simplistic view, the red shirts support of Thaksin is democracy. To me it is a perversion of it, and how better educated Thais see it as well.

There is no room in real democracy for the nepotism and cronyism rife in this administration, for the lack of independence of the police with family members given rocket promotions, and for the attempt of the same in the military which triggered the last coup.

Corruption is rampant in this country, yet the ruling party wishes to dismantle the courts that hinder it, delaying money-laundering legislation to give a bill laden with self-interest priority.

If you want me to support the red movement, I will consider it when I see Thasin in a cell for the rest of his life or in a burning box. Until then, they are just mercenary accessories to his corruption.

[phl]

Legal experts yesterday questioned the Constitution Court's decision to review petitions filed against the proponents of a new constitution.

Call me crazy, but i always thought that the judges were the legal experts

Also what exact quality's and expertise qualify law lecturer from a university or someone from the law faculty to be an expert to question judges and the court, including the entire legal system?

[thaicbr]

Anyone with half a brain knows that the Constitutional Mock court has no power to rule. However it is to satisfy the neo fascists of the PAD. Fascists being it in brown or in yellow shirts are dangerous and have nothing with democracy. They hate it.

Communists in red have little to do with democracy either. (Note I'm talking about the leadership)

They are dangerous.

When will you all get it into your heads this has bugger all to do with democracy an oft bandied word world wide from Chavez to Mugabe to Hun Sen. All just a phone call away from dear leader number one (thaksin)

Sent from my GT-P1010 using Thaivisa Connect App

Edited June 8, 2012 by thaicbr

[waza]

Legal experts yesterday questioned the Constitution Court's decision to review petitions filed against the proponents of a new constitution.

Call me crazy, but i always thought that the judges were the legal experts

Also what exact quality's and expertise qualify law lecturer from a university or someone from the law faculty to be an expert to question judges and the court, including the entire legal system?

Good question

[nurofiend]

Legal experts yesterday questioned the Constitution Court's decision to review petitions filed against the proponents of a new constitution.

Call me crazy, but i always thought that the judges were the legal experts

Also what exact quality's and expertise qualify law lecturer from a university or someone from the law faculty to be an expert to question judges and the court, including the entire legal system?

their expertise in law is the answer to your question on how they can form their opinion on the matter.

unless you think judges are infallible.

[gand]

Will the PTP pass a law to eliminate the Constitutional court?

[phl]

Legal experts yesterday questioned the Constitution Court's decision to review petitions filed against the proponents of a new constitution.

Call me crazy, but i always thought that the judges were the legal experts

Also what exact quality's and expertise qualify law lecturer from a university or someone from the law faculty to be an expert to question judges and the court, including the entire legal system?

their expertise in law is the answer to your question on how they can form their opinion on the matter.

unless you think judges are infallible.

I just believe that the judge has little more knowledge and understanding of the law than a teacher, this is why judge is a judge and teacher is a teacher

Unless of course you happy to believe and happy to have a surgery with a medical lecturer instead of a surgeon him/herself

Edited June 9, 2012 by phl

[phiphidon]

I just believe that the judge has little more knowledge and understanding of the law than a teacher, this is why judge is a judge and teacher is a teacher

Unless of course you happy to believe and happy to have a surgery with a medical lecturer instead of a surgeon him/herself

It is not so much the knowledge that is at fault but rather how it is applied. The CC think they can take a complaint about a bill to which they have applied the blanket restrictions of Section 68 i.e

“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”.

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

without receiving that complaint through the Attorney General as stated on their website. They are doing this by interpreting the and in the second paragraph of the link above as and / or, which is nonsense, whether in the thai or the english language.

They say one doesn't need to go through the AG to ask for a bill to be deemed unconstitutional, you can do it direct.

If you accept this it means that from now on whichever party is in power the opposition can apply directly to the CC under Section 68 without investigation of the facts by the AG, (and let's just say the CC is slightly less than impartial because they have been put in place by the Military Junta) have the bill ruled unconstitutional, and hence thrown out. Ergo the CC are interfering with the law making side of the House - in what is known as a seperation of powers, they are considerably blurring the edges.

[gand]

Legal experts yesterday questioned the Constitution Court's decision to review petitions filed against the proponents of a new constitution.

Call me crazy, but i always thought that the judges were the legal experts

Also what exact quality's and expertise qualify law lecturer from a university or someone from the law faculty to be an expert to question judges and the court, including the entire legal system?

their expertise in law is the answer to your question on how they can form their opinion on the matter.

unless you think judges are infallible.

I just believe that the judge has little more knowledge and understanding of the law than a teacher, this is why judge is a judge and teacher is a teacher

Unless of course you happy to believe and happy to have a surgery with a medical lecturer instead of a surgeon him/herself

"Those who can -- do. Those who can't -- teach." - Henry Louis Mencken (1880-1956)

[Yunla]

There are no reasons to postpone the amending of the Constitution.

So be quiet while we reconciliation you.

[phiphidon]

"Those who can -- do. Those who can't -- teach." - Henry Louis Mencken (1880-1956)

Do you not think that at some stage those judges went to a law school? At that stage the teachers would presumably know more than the trainee judge (one would hope). The trainee judges then go on to become judges either through skill, allegedly cheating at exams (as was shown 2 years ago) or being appointed by a crony another learned Judge. I do not find it a challenge to believe that some law lecturers know as much if not more about the law than some Judges, they just chose a different path.

[gand]

Reconciliation would be to put all the criminals on trial and punish them accordingly. When there are no consequences, things only get worse.

[animatic]

Anyone with half a brain knows that the Constitutional Mock court has no power to rule. However it is to satisfy the neo fascists of the PAD. Fascists being it in brown or in yellow shirts are dangerous and have nothing with democracy. They hate it.

"Anyone with half a brain knows......" QED

He makes his point;

A Mock Court doesn't have power to rule.

That is both a mock entity and not a ruling entity.

But in the same 3 breaths misses the point completely.

But the real court has the power to MAKE RULINGS

based on the Constitution and that says it can over rule badly drawn legislation,

if it isn't in accordance with said Constitution.

Edited June 9, 2012 by animatic

[animatic]

Legal experts yesterday questioned the Constitution Court's decision to review petitions filed against the proponents of a new constitution.

Call me crazy, but i always thought that the judges were the legal experts

Also what exact quality's and expertise qualify law lecturer from a university or someone from the law faculty to be an expert to question judges and the court, including the entire legal system?

Exactly those that teach the law in schools are not by their positions

suddenly elevated above those that actually work WITH the law.

The Professors teach what the courts and legislatures promulgate or adjudicate.

They don't tell them what is what, they get told, and then simply pass that on.

[animatic]

"Those who can -- do. Those who can't -- teach." - Henry Louis Mencken (1880-1956)

Do you not think that at some stage those judges went to a law school? At that stage the teachers would presumably know more than the trainee judge (one would hope). The trainee judges then go on to become judges either through skill, allegedly cheating at exams (as was shown 2 years ago) or being appointed by a crony another learned Judge. I do not find it a challenge to believe that some law lecturers know as much if not more about the law than some Judges, they just chose a different path.

And the judges who arrive at the top courts are the ones who have the time on the bench,

experience and knowledge to surpass all others, including their old professors,

who are NOT getting their jobs.

Edited June 9, 2012 by animatic

[animatic]

Reconciliation would be to put all the criminals on trial and punish them accordingly. When there are no consequences, things only get worse.

Too Western, that's not the Thai Way.

Here it's The Thai way or the Highway.

[tlansford]

"Those who can -- do. Those who can't -- teach." - Henry Louis Mencken (1880-1956)

Do you not think that at some stage those judges went to a law school? At that stage the teachers would presumably know more than the trainee judge (one would hope). The trainee judges then go on to become judges either through skill, allegedly cheating at exams (as was shown 2 years ago) or being appointed by a crony another learned Judge. I do not find it a challenge to believe that some law lecturers know as much if not more about the law than some Judges, they just chose a different path.

Phiphidon, it is a waste of time to try to either inform or convince posters with these views. If they do not recognize that many sitting judges have been professors themselves, or that legal experts might actually be legal experts, then it is wasted effort.

On the other hand, this is very interesting. The level of judicial activism is jumping. As noted here, this is unprecedented.

The Nation also did a nice little propaganda piece on the judge leading the CC which was typically unsatisfactory in its level of details - eg: talking about the cases he ruled on but not how he voted such as in the Thaksin land auction conviction.

I personally can't see the justification for the courts getting involved now, and it strikes me as a bad omen - let's say a public event indicating the maneuvering which is very likely (OK, IMO, without a doubt) taking place in the background.

[OzMick]

"Those who can -- do. Those who can't -- teach." - Henry Louis Mencken (1880-1956)

Do you not think that at some stage those judges went to a law school? At that stage the teachers would presumably know more than the trainee judge (one would hope). The trainee judges then go on to become judges either through skill, allegedly cheating at exams (as was shown 2 years ago) or being appointed by a crony another learned Judge. I do not find it a challenge to believe that some law lecturers know as much if not more about the law than some Judges, they just chose a different path.

Phiphidon, it is a waste of time to try to either inform or convince posters with these views. If they do not recognize that many sitting judges have been professors themselves, or that legal experts might actually be legal experts, then it is wasted effort.

On the other hand, this is very interesting. The level of judicial activism is jumping. As noted here, this is unprecedented.

The Nation also did a nice little propaganda piece on the judge leading the CC which was typically unsatisfactory in its level of details - eg: talking about the cases he ruled on but not how he voted such as in the Thaksin land auction conviction.

I personally can't see the justification for the courts getting involved now, and it strikes me as a bad omen - let's say a public event indicating the maneuvering which is very likely (OK, IMO, without a doubt) taking place in the background.

The event you allude to is the disbanding of PTP for blatant breaking of electoral law in the last election. Best to have the militia all wound up and ready to fight before it happens. Or is it just coincidence that the decision is to be handed down soon?

The question must also be asked, why was PTP so blatant in its inclusion of Thaksin in campaigning knowing full well this was grounds for them to be disbanded? why were red shirts accused of terrorism and other charges included in the party list (also grounds) except to make such a disbandment more personal to the reds? Are Thaksin and his cronies seeking civil war?

[tlansford]

I just believe that the judge has little more knowledge and understanding of the law than a teacher, this is why judge is a judge and teacher is a teacher

Unless of course you happy to believe and happy to have a surgery with a medical lecturer instead of a surgeon him/herself

It is not so much the knowledge that is at fault but rather how it is applied. The CC think they can take a complaint about a bill to which they have applied the blanket restrictions of Section 68 i.e

“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”.

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

without receiving that complaint through the Attorney General as stated on their website. They are doing this by interpreting the and in the second paragraph of the link above as and / or, which is nonsense, whether in the thai or the english language.

They say one doesn't need to go through the AG to ask for a bill to be deemed unconstitutional, you can do it direct.

If you accept this it means that from now on whichever party is in power the opposition can apply directly to the CC under Section 68 without investigation of the facts by the AG, (and let's just say the CC is slightly less than impartial because they have been put in place by the Military Junta) have the bill ruled unconstitutional, and hence thrown out. Ergo the CC are interfering with the law making side of the House - in what is known as a seperation of powers, they are considerably blurring the edges.

So the CC is composed of academics... Guess that means that a professor of law might be qualified, or in other infantile words, "those who can't teach, judge".

The junta installed an interim Constitutional Tribunal composed of nine handpicked judges. In May 2007, this court voted 6-3 to dissolve Thai Rak Thai (but notably not the Democrat Party). However, this exclusively judicial Constitutional Tribunal was short-lived. The 2007 Constitution created a new Constitutional Court, butgave judicial members a majority of five seats, with the other four going to legal and social science academics.

Edited June 9, 2012 by tlansford

[thaicbr]

Tlansford.

Can I ask a question.

When the constitution court asked the Parliament to postpone the vote did they say that the Parliament HAD to do as asked?

Sent from my GT-P1010 using Thaivisa Connect App

[volk666]

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

Today the judges insisted that "and" here refers to options available to the petitioner, not to options available to the AG.

"Legal experts" could be hired to argue both pro and against any particular notion, I believe that's what they are taught at law schools. Their opinions could be taken into consideration but they cannot be compared to opinions of judges specifically appointed to interpret the constitution. There's a reason these "legal experts" work as teachers and not as judges.

That's how it works under normal circumstances but here we have red shirts taking the law into their own hands and dictating the courts how to rule.

[phiphidon]

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

Today the judges insisted that "and" here refers to options available to the petitioner, not to options available to the AG.

"Legal experts" could be hired to argue both pro and against any particular notion, I believe that's what they are taught at law schools. Their opinions could be taken into consideration but they cannot be compared to opinions of judges specifically appointed to interpret the constitution. There's a reason these "legal experts" work as teachers and not as judges.

That's how it works under normal circumstances but here we have red shirts taking the law into their own hands and dictating the courts how to rule.

Well if these Judges are interpreting the "and" as "and / or" why do they have on their (the CC) website that the only way that a bill can be forwarded to them under Section 68 is through the Attorney General?

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

[volk666]

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

Today the judges insisted that "and" here refers to options available to the petitioner, not to options available to the AG.

"Legal experts" could be hired to argue both pro and against any particular notion, I believe that's what they are taught at law schools. Their opinions could be taken into consideration but they cannot be compared to opinions of judges specifically appointed to interpret the constitution. There's a reason these "legal experts" work as teachers and not as judges.

That's how it works under normal circumstances but here we have red shirts taking the law into their own hands and dictating the courts how to rule.

Well if these Judges are interpreting the "and" as "and / or" why do they have on their (the CC) website that the only way that a bill can be forwarded to them under Section 68 is through the Attorney General?

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

There's obviously a mistake somewhere as both interpretations can't be valid simultaneously.

They reportedly discussed this matter before issuing the injunction. They confirmed that interpretation yesterday again. So it's the official injunction and public confirmation vs. the website.

It's a good question how the "erroneous" interpretation appeared on the website but for now you have to admit that website itself is not legally binding on judges decisions and interpretations.

Edited June 9, 2012 by volk666

[gand]

PTP: The Constitutional Court's authority is what we say it is. Laws? We are the LAW.

[phiphidon]

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

Today the judges insisted that "and" here refers to options available to the petitioner, not to options available to the AG.

"Legal experts" could be hired to argue both pro and against any particular notion, I believe that's what they are taught at law schools. Their opinions could be taken into consideration but they cannot be compared to opinions of judges specifically appointed to interpret the constitution. There's a reason these "legal experts" work as teachers and not as judges.

That's how it works under normal circumstances but here we have red shirts taking the law into their own hands and dictating the courts how to rule.

Well if these Judges are interpreting the "and" as "and / or" why do they have on their (the CC) website that the only way that a bill can be forwarded to them under Section 68 is through the Attorney General?

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

There's obviously a mistake somewhere as both interpretations can't be valid simultaneously.

They reportedly discussed this matter before issuing the injunction. They confirmed that interpretation yesterday again. So it's the official injunction and public confirmation vs. the website.

It's a good question how the "erroneous" interpretation appeared on the website but for now you have to admit that website itself is not legally binding on judges decisions and interpretations.

With respect the only reason that this situation has arisen because someone has told the CC that the bills are likely to "overthrow the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of State under this Constitution" Section 68 - pure supposition. The Attorney General has already ruled the bills as doing nothing of the sort, The CC will likely follow after a period of deliberation but in the process have pushed their boundaries to the limit and beyond by the mere act of bypassing the Attorney General.

That someone is the Democrat Party - it has nothing to do with the Red Shirts. As usual the dems, not being able to win through an Election, are seeking to use the courts to engineer a position of strife.

[tlansford]

Tlansford.

Can I ask a question.

When the constitution court asked the Parliament to postpone the vote did they say that the Parliament HAD to do as asked?

Sent from my GT-P1010 using Thaivisa Connect App

It did not seem like a request, but an order - at least that is the wording used in the English language reports.

The only thing I have personally read on your question is : http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/561029-top-thai-judge-has-led-a-life-full-of-achievements-profile/

"If the Parliament does not follow the order of the Constitution Court, it is for [Parliament] to be responsible itself. However, the court has considered this and has the power to examine [the draft] according to the law,"