Experts Question Court Decision Over Charter Amendment Bill

[volk666]

Thaksin´s order. Get me home NOW.

Yeah, but I don't see how the constitution amendment is going to help him at all, especially considering it might take up to a year to complete the process.

[nurofiend]

Getting back on topic for a moment....

One thing that keeps getting overlooked here is WHY the Constitution Court interpreted the rules as they did. It isn't because they wanted to overthrow the legislature, as some here and elsewhere blather on about. And for anyone who honestly thinks this was their goal, I suggest you go and crawl back under the rock you crawled out from under.

They ruled this way because there was real danger of violence breaking out and people being killed. Do any of the red shirt sympathizers here actually recognize this? Would you have rather that the Constitution Court, instead of taking this very liberal view of the law which preserved the peace, refused to issue an injunction? Because the results there are predictable. Clashes were inevitable. Fighting. Death. Bloodshed.

At least be honest about this. You may not like the fact that your side's push was stunted, but at least try to have the personal integrity to recognize where your side's actions were taking the country.

Are any of you who are denouncing the Constitution Court willing to be adult enough to admit that in doing what they did, they also likely saved dozens, hundreds or possibly even thousands of lives? Or will you continue acting like children and trying to claim that returning the fugitive his ill gotten wealth and clearing him of a jail sentence is really worth the lives of innocent people?

This long ago stopped being about winning and losing. This is about the slide of a country that I call my home into civil war.

Rules are there to keep society from descending into anarchy. Sometimes those rules in their strictest interpretations are not helpful in a given situation. In this case, by interpreting the rule the way they did, the judges prevented anarchy for a little while longer. Any other interpretation by them would have been immoral. The judges are true heroes in my book.

it's not a question of morality, it's a question of legality

maybe it was right for this to be halted for the good of the country but if it was in fact illegal for the cc to act as they did, then where do you draw the line on morality < legality?

do we discriminate between situations on when to act outside the law and when to not do so, based on if the said proposal has moral intentions or not?

and to this argument of saving lives, how do we know that this act will not inflame an already burning situation?

it seems to me like the pad came out, the dems threw a hissy fit and the cc obeyed.

their interpretation of the law seems shaky at best.

But how can you say that? You are not an expert on Thai Law and the Judges are. The interpretation of article 68 seems quite clear and correct. We do not know what will be the effects in the future, but we can make judgements on the immediate potential consequences and in this case the judges were correct. The PAD did not do anything untoward. There was a peaceful process where all microphone activity stopped at 8pm and it only lasted as long as it needed, the reds in comparison go on all night.

i can say that by reading what they interpreted, the 'and' part basically... and i think it's shaky.

i didn't say pad did anything untoward, they came out, as is their right to do so.

[volk666]

It is also hard to believe that constitution writers meant that all the roads to Constitution Court must pass Office of Attorney General, a political appointee, who, as it happened, has no qualms about taking on Court's job and ruling what is legal and what is not. He could have said "there's no basis to pass the petitions" but he didn't, he just said the draft amendment was legal.

Article 68 is about some serious business, like turning monarchy into a republic, why should the work of the entire Constitution Court depend on approval of one government run office? That doesn't make any sense.

[nurofiend]

It is also hard to believe that constitution writers meant that all the roads to Constitution Court must pass Office of Attorney General, a political appointee, who, as it happened, has no qualms about taking on Court's job and ruling what is legal and what is not. He could have said "there's no basis to pass the petitions" but he didn't, he just said the draft amendment was legal.

Article 68 is about some serious business, like turning monarchy into a republic, why should the work of the entire Constitution Court depend on approval of one government run office? That doesn't make any sense.

so why mention the office of attorney general then if you don't need to go through it?

[volk666]

Could be because not every charge should proceed only to the Constitution Court, there are other courts as well.

[nurofiend]

?

but it's not about other courts, the article is about the constitution court

"the person knowing of such act shall have the right to request the prosecutor-general to investigate its facts and submit a motion to the Constitution Court for ordering cessation of such acts"

basically this has been interpreted as, a person can request the prosecutor-general to investigate its facts or not.. if they can't be bothered with all that hassle, they can just submit the motion straight to the constitution court themselves...it's very shaky indeed.

[GentlemanJim]

?

but it's not about other courts, the article is about the constitution court

"the person knowing of such act shall have the right to request the prosecutor-general to investigate its facts and submit a motion to the Constitution Court for ordering cessation of such acts"

basically this has been interpreted as, a person can request the prosecutor-general to investigate its facts or not.. if they can't be bothered with all that hassle, they can just submit the motion straight to the constitution court themselves...it's very shaky indeed.

It's not shaky, it's clear. Judges made this interpretation, not non judges. Judges are there to have the final say in interpreting law.

[nurofiend]

ohhhh right then, it's not shaky at all.

[rubl]

Knowing about as much about law and fine print as most guys on the street (i.e. slightly next to nothing) I'm amazed at the certainty with which some members are able to (pro)claim that this or that fine learned gentleman is absolutely correct when saying that what they didn't like anyway is indeed not legal also.

A somewhat off topic question, if you please allow me: with the Ten Commandments carried down the mountain by Moses, why do we need a charter or constitution? Maybe the British have it right at not having (or needing) a constitution? The last explicitly confirmed to me fairly recently here, the UK only has some scraps of paper, some even with crumbling lacker seals as in vogue 700 odd years ago.

[phl]

the gov't is not challenging the court. The gov't is going about it's business of making and passing laws. The court is challenging the gov't before a law is even passed.

And legal experts comment on judicial decisions all the time... I mean really, on a non-stop basis. It boggles the mind why people here find that to be unusual.

Interesting response to my post and questions i put to you. Totally unrelated. You do sound more and more like politician

Still would love to see direct answers though to my only 2 questions/requests

PS. Hence the government is a victim here according to your interpretation, what about awaiting court ruling and if still believe its out of line, appealing courts decision?! Would that not be the normal procedure? clearly it would not fit into a time frame set by 1 individual, but would be the proper legal way of running the country

Edited June 10, 2012 by phl

[metisdead]

Off topic posts and replies have been removed.

[tlansford]

the gov't is not challenging the court. The gov't is going about it's business of making and passing laws. The court is challenging the gov't before a law is even passed.

And legal experts comment on judicial decisions all the time... I mean really, on a non-stop basis. It boggles the mind why people here find that to be unusual.

Interesting response to my post and questions i put to you. Totally unrelated. You do sound more and more like politician

Still would love to see direct answers though to my only 2 questions/requests

PS. Hence the government is a victim here according to your interpretation, what about awaiting court ruling and if still believe its out of line, appealing courts decision?! Would that not be the normal procedure? clearly it would not fit into a time frame set by 1 individual, but would be the proper legal way of running the country

hmmm, then why remove your questions from the reply?

They were :

" But please feel free to point out a country where government was in the position to challenge the court? or a country where a lecturer was brought in as an expert in case against a judge?"

To the first one, the government is not challenging the courts. This is a court-initiated action.

To the second, as noted it happens all the time. Even in Thailand. I posted earlier, the fact that the CC is made up of exactly such academics. And to state the truly obvious, does anyone here think that the 9 justices on the CC are the ONLY people in Thailand qualified for the CC and that there are no other legal experts who can genuinely comment on the situation?

And your final point, to wait for the court ruling, is exactly what is being discussed by these legal experts... the fact that it is the court which should be waiting for there to actually be a law to rule on.

[phl]

the gov't is not challenging the court. The gov't is going about it's business of making and passing laws. The court is challenging the gov't before a law is even passed.

And legal experts comment on judicial decisions all the time... I mean really, on a non-stop basis. It boggles the mind why people here find that to be unusual.

Interesting response to my post and questions i put to you. Totally unrelated. You do sound more and more like politician

Still would love to see direct answers though to my only 2 questions/requests

PS. Hence the government is a victim here according to your interpretation, what about awaiting court ruling and if still believe its out of line, appealing courts decision?! Would that not be the normal procedure? clearly it would not fit into a time frame set by 1 individual, but would be the proper legal way of running the country

hmmm, then why remove your questions from the reply?

They were :

" But please feel free to point out a country where government was in the position to challenge the court? or a country where a lecturer was brought in as an expert in case against a judge?"

To the first one, the government is not challenging the courts. This is a court-initiated action.

To the second, as noted it happens all the time. Even in Thailand. I posted earlier, the fact that the CC is made up of exactly such academics. And to state the truly obvious, does anyone here think that the 9 justices on the CC are the ONLY people in Thailand qualified for the CC and that there are no other legal experts who can genuinely comment on the situation?

And your final point, to wait for the court ruling, is exactly what is being discussed by these legal experts... the fact that it is the court which should be waiting for there to actually be a law to rule on.

it had to be removed as the number of quotes was not allowed.

You are telling me your opinion on the matter, where i have asked to show a real life example, perhaps a link to such a story

[bbradsby]

... if you have a drivers license from someplace like Texas, then countries like Germany don't accept your license for exchange without taking their tests either.

OK, that's just so unfair. In Texas, drivers are trained by their daddies to multitask while driving. You try holding a beer while reaching for a gun for a bit of roadside spotlight hunting, all the while keeping the pick-em-up out of the ditch. It's a real skill.

[FOODLOVER]

... if you have a drivers license from someplace like Texas, then countries like Germany don't accept your license for exchange without taking their tests either.

OK, that's just so unfair. In Texas, drivers are trained by their daddies to multitask while driving. You try holding a beer while reaching for a gun for a bit of roadside spotlight hunting, all the while keeping the pick-em-up out of the ditch. It's a real skill.

Yes true! It wasn't but about 15 years ago they had drive through cocktails. Really, you could get a margarita in a drive through, go to the liquor barn and drive through it and buy all the hard liquor you wanted without getting out of the car. Kegs too! Be nice if they could put one of those near the autobahn.

[bbradsby]

Great discussion about the Judiciary's place in the rule of law in parliamentary systems and democracy.

However, in THIS country, the Yellows, along with the military and rich elites, are Royalists and tell Western observers to butt out of the conversation when they bring in the 'democracy' word. So it's all really a tempest in a teapot talking about judicial procedures interfering with legislative arm of government. If any sitting government gets cross-wise with the elites, it is nixed and replaced by the military, who all Thais will tell you work for the King. Currently, Thailand loves & follows its KIng and wants nothing resembling a democracy, and end of day, that's their business to sort out.

[binjalin]

Great discussion about the Judiciary's place in the rule of law in parliamentary systems and democracy.

However, in THIS country, the Yellows, along with the military and rich elites, are Royalists and tell Western observers to butt out of the conversation when they bring in the 'democracy' word. So it's all really a tempest in a teapot talking about judicial procedures interfering with legislative arm of government. If any sitting government gets cross-wise with the elites, it is nixed and replaced by the military, who all Thais will tell you work for the King. Currently, Thailand loves & follows its KIng and wants nothing resembling a democracy, and end of day, that's their business to sort out.

more could be said but it's against TV rules

[volk666]

?

but it's not about other courts, the article is about the constitution court

No, it isn't, it's about options available to a person who has learned of evil plans to change Thai system of government. I don't think Constitution Court would have to be involved in each and every case. Does it even take cases against private individuals, for example?

AG might decide to go to Supreme Court or to Criminal Court instead and bring charges of treason.

Basically, you are speculating, which is fine, but what makes you think your speculations are more reasonable than CC judges decision?

Suddenly everybody's an expert while government officials give out phone numbers and addresses of CC judges to street mobs. We are not dealing with reason here, more like (t)reason.

[gand]

Has Yingluck rendered her expert opinion?

[binjalin]

?

but it's not about other courts, the article is about the constitution court

No, it isn't, it's about options available to a person who has learned of evil plans to change Thai system of government. I don't think Constitution Court would have to be involved in each and every case. Does it even take cases against private individuals, for example?

AG might decide to go to Supreme Court or to Criminal Court instead and bring charges of treason.

Basically, you are speculating, which is fine, but what makes you think your speculations are more reasonable than CC judges decision?

Suddenly everybody's an expert while government officials give out phone numbers and addresses of CC judges to street mobs. We are not dealing with reason here, more like (t)reason.

'evil plans'? are you serious? Thailand can't change the constitution OR debate it because it would be 'evil plans'? jeeze

[GentlemanJim]

?

but it's not about other courts, the article is about the constitution court

No, it isn't, it's about options available to a person who has learned of evil plans to change Thai system of government. I don't think Constitution Court would have to be involved in each and every case. Does it even take cases against private individuals, for example?

AG might decide to go to Supreme Court or to Criminal Court instead and bring charges of treason.

Basically, you are speculating, which is fine, but what makes you think your speculations are more reasonable than CC judges decision?

Suddenly everybody's an expert while government officials give out phone numbers and addresses of CC judges to street mobs. We are not dealing with reason here, more like (t)reason.

'evil plans'? are you serious? Thailand can't change the constitution OR debate it because it would be 'evil plans'? jeeze

Well debating it would be a very good start and perhaps if the respective leaders of both major parties were present in the debate to display some leadership and control then we may get some where. But you have more chance of platting fog than that happening.

[phiphidon]

?

but it's not about other courts, the article is about the constitution court

No, it isn't, it's about options available to a person who has learned of evil plans to change Thai system of government. I don't think Constitution Court would have to be involved in each and every case. Does it even take cases against private individuals, for example?

AG might decide to go to Supreme Court or to Criminal Court instead and bring charges of treason.

Basically, you are speculating, which is fine, but what makes you think your speculations are more reasonable than CC judges decision?

Suddenly everybody's an expert while government officials give out phone numbers and addresses of CC judges to street mobs. We are not dealing with reason here, more like (t)reason.

'evil plans'? are you serious? Thailand can't change the constitution OR debate it because it would be 'evil plans'? jeeze

Well debating it would be a very good start and perhaps if the respective leaders of both major parties were present in the debate to display some leadership and control then we may get some where. But you have more chance of platting fog than that happening.

The Charter change bill has had two lots of debating in the first two readings. For reasons best known to the Dems (for complaining that the bill would bring about about the overthrow of the Head of State) and the CC (for illegally ordering the stoppage of debate) the 3rd reading of the bill has been stopped. This is the bill to change the constitution to allow the setting up of the Constitution Drafting Assembly (CDA) &lt;deleted&gt;, not a plan to take over the world.......................

[binjalin]

For reasons best known to the Dems

because ​that they lost the election and seek to stop, stall and frustrate EVERYTHING the elected government try to do either by this sort of tactic or by mobs or their own MP's behaving like football hooligans and attacking the Speaker - the rich, powerful and elite are PISSED because they are losing power and their carefully constructed edifice is starting to crumble because the Thai people are waking up from their serfdom.

[volk666]

?

but it's not about other courts, the article is about the constitution court

No, it isn't, it's about options available to a person who has learned of evil plans to change Thai system of government. I don't think Constitution Court would have to be involved in each and every case. Does it even take cases against private individuals, for example?

AG might decide to go to Supreme Court or to Criminal Court instead and bring charges of treason.

Basically, you are speculating, which is fine, but what makes you think your speculations are more reasonable than CC judges decision?

Suddenly everybody's an expert while government officials give out phone numbers and addresses of CC judges to street mobs. We are not dealing with reason here, more like (t)reason.

'evil plans'? are you serious? Thailand can't change the constitution OR debate it because it would be 'evil plans'? jeeze

What? I was talking about what it says in the constitution, not about any specific events.

I was just lazy to copy paste or accurately rephrase that Article 68:

"A person is prohibited from using the rights and liberties provided in the Constitution to overthrow the democratic rule with the King as the Head of the State as provided by this Constitution; or to acquire power to rule the country by means other than is provided in the Constitution."

That's what I meant by "evil plans to change Thai system of government", not "change the constitution OR debate it" as you understood, mistakenly, I might add.

[GentlemanJim]

No, it isn't, it's about options available to a person who has learned of evil plans to change Thai system of government. I don't think Constitution Court would have to be involved in each and every case. Does it even take cases against private individuals, for example?

AG might decide to go to Supreme Court or to Criminal Court instead and bring charges of treason.

Basically, you are speculating, which is fine, but what makes you think your speculations are more reasonable than CC judges decision?

Suddenly everybody's an expert while government officials give out phone numbers and addresses of CC judges to street mobs. We are not dealing with reason here, more like (t)reason.

'evil plans'? are you serious? Thailand can't change the constitution OR debate it because it would be 'evil plans'? jeeze

Well debating it would be a very good start and perhaps if the respective leaders of both major parties were present in the debate to display some leadership and control then we may get some where. But you have more chance of platting fog than that happening.

The Charter change bill has had two lots of debating in the first two readings. For reasons best known to the Dems (for complaining that the bill would bring about about the overthrow of the Head of State) and the CC (for illegally ordering the stoppage of debate) the 3rd reading of the bill has been stopped. This is the bill to change the constitution to allow the setting up of the Constitution Drafting Assembly (CDA) &lt;deleted&gt;, not a plan to take over the world.......................

No need for expletives now is there, no matter how you try and hide them.

I really don't think you know what you are talking about chap.

[lungmi]

Great discussion about the Judiciary's place in the rule of law in parliamentary systems and democracy.

However, in THIS country, the Yellows, along with the military and rich elites, are Royalists and tell Western observers to butt out of the conversation when they bring in the 'democracy' word. So it's all really a tempest in a teapot talking about judicial procedures interfering with legislative arm of government. If any sitting government gets cross-wise with the elites, it is nixed and replaced by the military, who all Thais will tell you work for the King. Currently, Thailand loves & follows its KIng and wants nothing resembling a democracy, and end of day, that's their business to sort out.

b....t

Next

[gand]

For reasons best known to the Dems

because ​that they lost the election and seek to stop, stall and frustrate EVERYTHING the elected government try to do either by this sort of tactic or by mobs or their own MP's behaving like football hooligans and attacking the Speaker - the rich, powerful and elite are PISSED because they are losing power and their carefully constructed edifice is starting to crumble because the Thai people are waking up from their serfdom.

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss, if not worse in this case with TS. They will still be serfs under PTP.

[phiphidon]

Well debating it would be a very good start and perhaps if the respective leaders of both major parties were present in the debate to display some leadership and control then we may get some where. But you have more chance of platting fog than that happening.

The Charter change bill has had two lots of debating in the first two readings. For reasons best known to the Dems (for complaining that the bill would bring about about the overthrow of the Head of State) and the CC (for illegally ordering the stoppage of debate) the 3rd reading of the bill has been stopped. This is the bill to change the constitution to allow the setting up of the Constitution Drafting Assembly (CDA) &lt;deleted&gt;, not a plan to take over the world.......................

No need for expletives now is there, no matter how you try and hide them.

I really don't think you know what you are talking about chap.

Really? Pray tell.

[nurofiend]

edit: actually nvm

Edited June 11, 2012 by nurofiend

[phiphidon]

The Charter change bill has had two lots of debating in the first two readings. For reasons best known to the Dems (for complaining that the bill would bring about about the overthrow of the Head of State) and the CC (for illegally ordering the stoppage of debate) the 3rd reading of the bill has been stopped. This is the bill to change the constitution to allow the setting up of the Constitution Drafting Assembly (CDA) &lt;deleted&gt;, not a plan to take over the world.......................

No need for expletives now is there, no matter how you try and hide them.

I really don't think you know what you are talking about chap.

You must have known at the time of writing what my failures of understanding were to come out with that statement, so are you going to tell me?

Or is it just an off the cuff remark you thought would make people believe your statement, that "I don't know what I'm talking about", is true?

Edited June 12, 2012 by phiphidon