Experts Question Court Decision Over Charter Amendment Bill

[Moruya]

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) <deleted>, not a plan to take over the world.......................

Taking over the world is step 2.

The concern by the opposition and other parties is that the scope of the CDA chnages needs to be defined.

Can a government amend parts of the constitution? For sure

Does it have carte blanche to rework the whole thing as it wishes for its own purposes? No, no and bloody no again.

There are parts of that constitution that should be submitted to the people prior to any change. This document has evolved over many years and should not be red-washed by one extremely dubious government and it's militant cohorts.

[binjalin]

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) <deleted>, not a plan to take over the world.......................

Taking over the world is step 2.

The concern by the opposition and other parties is that the scope of the CDA chnages needs to be defined.

Can a government amend parts of the constitution? For sure

Does it have carte blanche to rework the whole thing as it wishes for its own purposes? No, no and bloody no again.

There are parts of that constitution that should be submitted to the people prior to any change. This document has evolved over many years and should not be red-washed by one extremely dubious government and it's militant cohorts.

with all due respect you miss the point the DEBATE curtailed and as for 'red-washed' I am exasperated the government was elected! sorry they don't meet your requirements but the Thai people chose them IN Thailand not in TV poster-land and it's their business and unelected people are trying to manipulate MP's etc. to stifle free debate and the workings of Parliament even though the law is clear WHO can go to the CC but the CC are 're-inventing' the law - you support that?

[tlansford]

- deleted -

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) <deleted>, 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.

Getting too late to really dig into this, but maybe just point out one for the fun of it:

"for illegally ordering the stoppage of debate" - The CC asked, not ordered

Anyway totally off topic, No earlier than 13th of June, the Stargazer carrier aircraft, with the Pegasus launch vehicle and NuSTAR spacecraft strapped to its belly, will take off from Kwajalein's Bucholz Auxiliary Airfield an hour before launch, and climb to an altitude of about 39,000 feet (11,900 meters). This should occur around 7:30 a.m. PDT (10:30 a.m. EDT)

Everything I have read says that the CC issued an order.

To me, this looks like a power-play between the different branches of government and the interests which pull the levers behind them - as those branches are defined in the 2007 charter. Let's see how it plays out. The one thing which is certain is that it will be interesting.

Edited June 12, 2012 by tlansford

[Moruya]

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) <deleted>, not a plan to take over the world.......................

Taking over the world is step 2.

The concern by the opposition and other parties is that the scope of the CDA chnages needs to be defined.

Can a government amend parts of the constitution? For sure

Does it have carte blanche to rework the whole thing as it wishes for its own purposes? No, no and bloody no again.

There are parts of that constitution that should be submitted to the people prior to any change. This document has evolved over many years and should not be red-washed by one extremely dubious government and it's militant cohorts.

with all due respect you miss the point the DEBATE curtailed and as for 'red-washed' I am exasperated the government was elected! sorry they don't meet your requirements but the Thai people chose them IN Thailand not in TV poster-land and it's their business and unelected people are trying to manipulate MP's etc. to stifle free debate and the workings of Parliament even though the law is clear WHO can go to the CC but the CC are 're-inventing' the law - you support that?

In order for any changes to the constitution to be brought into law, the CC will have to approve them. If it rejects them now (as the CC has the power to do) then it saves wasting time and unnecessary conflict.

[rubl]

Getting too late to really dig into this, but maybe just point out one for the fun of it:

"for illegally ordering the stoppage of debate" - The CC asked, not ordered

Everything I have read says that the CC issued an order.

To me, this looks like a power-play between the different branches of government and the interests which pull the levers behind them - as those branches are defined in the 2007 charter. Let's see how it plays out. The one thing which is certain is that it will be interesting.

It started with "Constitution Court spokesman Pimol Thammapitakpong said the court had informed the secretary-general of the House of Representatives about the decision, adding that it was up to the House whether to postpone the reading." and continued to "But the vote on the third reading of the draft charter amendment could not proceed because the Constitution Court agreed to consider the legality of the draft constitutional amendment and issue an injunction to suspend the process until a court ruling, as it accepted five petitions lodged by a group of Senators and Democrat MPs challenging the legality of the draft."

http://www.thaivisa....hanges-on-hold/

In between there are some posts from you, suggesting you might have read this, but maybe you've forgotten by now

[Reasonableman]

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) <deleted>, not a plan to take over the world.......................

Taking over the world is step 2.

The concern by the opposition and other parties is that the scope of the CDA chnages needs to be defined.

Can a government amend parts of the constitution? For sure

Does it have carte blanche to rework the whole thing as it wishes for its own purposes? No, no and bloody no again.

There are parts of that constitution that should be submitted to the people prior to any change. This document has evolved over many years and should not be red-washed by one extremely dubious government and it's militant cohorts.

with all due respect you miss the point the DEBATE curtailed and as for 'red-washed' I am exasperated the government was elected! sorry they don't meet your requirements but the Thai people chose them IN Thailand not in TV poster-land and it's their business and unelected people are trying to manipulate MP's etc. to stifle free debate and the workings of Parliament even though the law is clear WHO can go to the CC but the CC are 're-inventing' the law - you support that?

"unelected people are trying to manipulate MP's". Good Heavens, who could possibly be guilty of that??

[Moruya]

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) <deleted>, not a plan to take over the world.......................

Taking over the world is step 2.

The concern by the opposition and other parties is that the scope of the CDA chnages needs to be defined.

Can a government amend parts of the constitution? For sure

Does it have carte blanche to rework the whole thing as it wishes for its own purposes? No, no and bloody no again.

There are parts of that constitution that should be submitted to the people prior to any change. This document has evolved over many years and should not be red-washed by one extremely dubious government and it's militant cohorts.

with all due respect you miss the point the DEBATE curtailed and as for 'red-washed' I am exasperated the government was elected! sorry they don't meet your requirements but the Thai people chose them IN Thailand not in TV poster-land and it's their business and unelected people are trying to manipulate MP's etc. to stifle free debate and the workings of Parliament even though the law is clear WHO can go to the CC but the CC are 're-inventing' the law - you support that?

"unelected people are trying to manipulate MP's". Good Heavens, who could possibly be guilty of that??

When you think of it there can't be that many that are innocent of it!!!

[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) <deleted>, not a plan to take over the world.......................

Taking over the world is step 2.

The concern by the opposition and other parties is that the scope of the CDA chnages needs to be defined.

Can a government amend parts of the constitution? For sure

Does it have carte blanche to rework the whole thing as it wishes for its own purposes? No, no and bloody no again.

There are parts of that constitution that should be submitted to the people prior to any change. This document has evolved over many years and should not be red-washed by one extremely dubious government and it's militant cohorts.

You really don't understand do you. How many more times do you need to be told that the 3rd reading of the charter ammendment bill is required to go through so that a Charter Drafting Assembly can be formed. Once the CDA has been formed, representatives as agreed by all parties with some forwarded by experts in the various fields will discuss what ammendments to the constitution would be forwarded, this will take about a year (I can't be bothered looking up the exact timescale). Once this has been done the proposed ammended constitution will be put to the people to vote for or against in a National referendum.

[phiphidon]

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.

Well when are you going to give the benefit of your knowledge to help my "not knowing what I am talking about"?

Tell you what, as the first question seems too hard for you to answer perhaps you could explain this:

In May 2006 a certain Mr. Suphot Towichaksachaiyakul petitioned the Constitutional Court to dissolve the Democrat Party under Article 63 of the Constitution.

(Note that at that time the relevant constitution the article was #63. In the new 2007 constitution this Article became #68, yes the same article #68 we are talking about now)

The petition was turned down because, wait for it,

The court refused to consider on the petition with the reason that the Article 63 (Now Article 68) does not allow the complainer to directly hand the petition to the court.

The petition must be considered by Attorney-General first.

http://thainews.prd....id=254905250012

Whoops! What a difference 6 years make...........................................

Edited June 12, 2012 by phiphidon

[metisdead]

A post which was admittedly off topic has been removed.

[waza]

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) <deleted>, not a plan to take over the world.......................

Taking over the world is step 2.

The concern by the opposition and other parties is that the scope of the CDA chnages needs to be defined.

Can a government amend parts of the constitution? For sure

Does it have carte blanche to rework the whole thing as it wishes for its own purposes? No, no and bloody no again.

There are parts of that constitution that should be submitted to the people prior to any change. This document has evolved over many years and should not be red-washed by one extremely dubious government and it's militant cohorts.

with all due respect you miss the point the DEBATE curtailed and as for 'red-washed' I am exasperated the government was elected! sorry they don't meet your requirements but the Thai people chose them IN Thailand not in TV poster-land and it's their business and unelected people are trying to manipulate MP's etc. to stifle free debate and the workings of Parliament even though the law is clear WHO can go to the CC but the CC are 're-inventing' the law - you support that?

This is utter rubbish. Sure the a majority of PTP members were elected and have the right to form a government and sure they have a mandate to implement thier election promises.

The concept of a government having a legitimate mandate to govern via the fair winning of a democraticelection is a central idea of democracy. New governments who attempt to introduce policies that they did not make public during an election campaign are said to not have a legitimate mandate to implement such policies.However, they dont have a mandate to amend the constitution. http://en.wikipedia....date_(politics)

If the PTP is a genuinely democratic party they should take the idea of potential changes to the masses via a peoples forum and a plebiscite, then they would have a mandate to amend the constitution.

Edited June 12, 2012 by waza

[binjalin]

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) <deleted>, not a plan to take over the world.......................

Taking over the world is step 2.

The concern by the opposition and other parties is that the scope of the CDA chnages needs to be defined.

Can a government amend parts of the constitution? For sure

Does it have carte blanche to rework the whole thing as it wishes for its own purposes? No, no and bloody no again.

There are parts of that constitution that should be submitted to the people prior to any change. This document has evolved over many years and should not be red-washed by one extremely dubious government and it's militant cohorts.

with all due respect you miss the point the DEBATE curtailed and as for 'red-washed' I am exasperated the government was elected! sorry they don't meet your requirements but the Thai people chose them IN Thailand not in TV poster-land and it's their business and unelected people are trying to manipulate MP's etc. to stifle free debate and the workings of Parliament even though the law is clear WHO can go to the CC but the CC are 're-inventing' the law - you support that?

This is utter rubbish. Sure the a majority of PTP members were elected and have the right to form a government and sure they have a mandate to implement thier election promises.

The concept of a government having a legitimate mandate to govern via the fair winning of a democraticelection is a central idea of democracy. New governments who attempt to introduce policies that they did not make public during an election campaign are said to not have a legitimate mandate to implement such policies.However, they dont have a mandate to amend the constitution. http://en.wikipedia....date_(politics)

If the PTP is a genuinely democratic party they should take the idea of potential changes to the masses via a peoples forum and a plebiscite, then they would have a mandate to amend the constitution.

they would, that was the whole point, to get it debated then a national referendum but they have not been allowed to do so. So who is talking utter rubbish? me or thee?

[rubl]

they would, that was the whole point, to get it debated then a national referendum but they have not been allowed to do so. So who is talking utter rubbish? me or thee?

One of the complaints on how the 2007 constitution was accepted by a referendum was that it required a simple voters majority (50% + 1 of valid votes). A 2/3 majority for such an important document as a countries constitution has been suggested by various lawyers, political scientists, etc., but the suggestion has been brushed aside. The current government can use it's seat majority in parliament to push through a charter change and with Dept. PM Pol. Captain Chalerm in a writing mode has a new constitution in no time, followed by a 'nice' referendum'

Pushing trough (or should I say ramming down the throat) is not really the type of democracy this country needs. It simply doesn't address reconciliation one single bit. IMHO

[tlansford]

-- deleted --

Taking over the world is step 2.

The concern by the opposition and other parties is that the scope of the CDA chnages needs to be defined.

Can a government amend parts of the constitution? For sure

Does it have carte blanche to rework the whole thing as it wishes for its own purposes? No, no and bloody no again.

There are parts of that constitution that should be submitted to the people prior to any change. This document has evolved over many years and should not be red-washed by one extremely dubious government and it's militant cohorts.

with all due respect you miss the point the DEBATE curtailed and as for 'red-washed' I am exasperated the government was elected! sorry they don't meet your requirements but the Thai people chose them IN Thailand not in TV poster-land and it's their business and unelected people are trying to manipulate MP's etc. to stifle free debate and the workings of Parliament even though the law is clear WHO can go to the CC but the CC are 're-inventing' the law - you support that?

This is utter rubbish. Sure the a majority of PTP members were elected and have the right to form a government and sure they have a mandate to implement thier election promises.

The concept of a government having a legitimate mandate to govern via the fair winning of a democraticelection is a central idea of democracy. New governments who attempt to introduce policies that they did not make public during an election campaign are said to not have a legitimate mandate to implement such policies.However, they dont have a mandate to amend the constitution. http://en.wikipedia....date_(politics)

If the PTP is a genuinely democratic party they should take the idea of potential changes to the masses via a peoples forum and a plebiscite, then they would have a mandate to amend the constitution.

they would, that was the whole point, to get it debated then a national referendum but they have not been allowed to do so. So who is talking utter rubbish? me or thee?

this is about forming the CDA.

The debate regarding changes has not started.

The screaming and whining is premature.

The log-jams to stop the process altogether, however, seem to be intentional.

[tlansford]

they would, that was the whole point, to get it debated then a national referendum but they have not been allowed to do so. So who is talking utter rubbish? me or thee?

One of the complaints on how the 2007 constitution was accepted by a referendum was that it required a simple voters majority (50% + 1 of valid votes). A 2/3 majority for such an important document as a countries constitution has been suggested by various lawyers, political scientists, etc., but the suggestion has been brushed aside. The current government can use it's seat majority in parliament to push through a charter change and with Dept. PM Pol. Captain Chalerm in a writing mode has a new constitution in no time, followed by a 'nice' referendum'

Pushing trough (or should I say ramming down the throat) is not really the type of democracy this country needs. It simply doesn't address reconciliation one single bit. IMHO

"One of the complaints on how the 2007 constitution was accepted by a referendum was that it required a simple voters majority (50% + 1 of valid votes)."

I have read of many complaints regarding the 2007 referendum, however that one I have not seen.

IMO a simple majority in a general referendum is sufficient - and in an open, fair vote, difficult to achieve.

[rubl]

they would, that was the whole point, to get it debated then a national referendum but they have not been allowed to do so. So who is talking utter rubbish? me or thee?

this is about forming the CDA.

The debate regarding changes has not started.

The screaming and whining is premature.

The log-jams to stop the process altogether, however, seem to be intentional.

Strictly speaking proposed charter changes are meant to allow the setup of a CDA only. The way the CDA will be setup and 'peopled' is another proposal by the Pheu Thai party which needs discussion, voting and accepting by Pheu Thai MPs only would only be sufficient. Please take our medicine, good for you.

The way the government led by the Pheu Thai party pushes through any laws they deem necessary to enable a more fully 'Thaksin thinks, Pheu Thai acts' makes it clear that the sooner some do the 'screaming and whining, the better. To wait till things are decided (either in form, or in fact), and even having it suggested seems fairly hilarious.

[rubl]

they would, that was the whole point, to get it debated then a national referendum but they have not been allowed to do so. So who is talking utter rubbish? me or thee?

One of the complaints on how the 2007 constitution was accepted by a referendum was that it required a simple voters majority (50% + 1 of valid votes). A 2/3 majority for such an important document as a countries constitution has been suggested by various lawyers, political scientists, etc., but the suggestion has been brushed aside. The current government can use it's seat majority in parliament to push through a charter change and with Dept. PM Pol. Captain Chalerm in a writing mode has a new constitution in no time, followed by a 'nice' referendum'

Pushing trough (or should I say ramming down the throat) is not really the type of democracy this country needs. It simply doesn't address reconciliation one single bit. IMHO

"One of the complaints on how the 2007 constitution was accepted by a referendum was that it required a simple voters majority (50% + 1 of valid votes)."

I have read of many complaints regarding the 2007 referendum, however that one I have not seen.

IMO a simple majority in a general referendum is sufficient - and in an open, fair vote, difficult to achieve.

Both the referendum on the 2007 constitution and the 2011 general election have shown that your assumption on 'difficult to achieve' is incorrect. I'm not even talking about the 'an open, fair vote'.

Anyway a contentious matter like constitution change should not require a 'simple majority', but a clear one. 2/3 majority is accepted in various countries, a simple 'this is it' in others.

BTW, France Constitutional Amendment:

the amendment must be adopted in identical terms by both houses of Parliament, then must be either adopted by a simple majority in a referendum, or by 3/5 of a joint session of both houses of Parliament (article 89). However, president Charles de Gaulle bypassed the legislative procedure in 1962 and directly sent a constitutional amendment to a referendum (article 11), which was adopted. This was highly controversial at the time; however, the Constitutional Council ruled that since a referendum expressed the will of the sovereign people, the amendment was adopted.

[waza]

What do the experts say?

“Did they fall asleep and didn’t know we got our power from the election?” Chalerm said, referring to judges on the nine-member Constitutional Court. “Don’t go too far. This is too much and no one can accept this.”..........

"The Constitutional Court has no right to prevent Parliament from voting on an amendment that would create a new body to rewrite the charter," Deputy Prime Minister Chalerm Yoobamrung. http://www.bloomberg...heast-asia.html

Traditionally, Thai governments have expected to be totally exempt from pressure from the public or other checks and balances once they are in power. The independent organizations and judiciary oversight enshrined in the 1997 [and 2007] constitution were an anathema to many in the Thai political world.

As was witnessed during the Thai Rak Thai government era, subverting or otherwise exerting control over any possible check and balance on the sitting government was a priority.

In subsequent years, the activities of the judiciary in disbanding the Thai Rak Thai and People Power Parties, confiscating Thaksin’s assets, and now halting the government from amending the constitution means the courts remain in the cross-hairs of the pro-Thaksin camp.

Independent checks and balances are still a new concept in Thailand and are often lumped into the same group as the shadowy and unnameable extra-political forces that continue to exert influence on the political world.

Thus, it may not be surprising that the Thai definition of democracy, in response to criticism over issues as diverse as the thinly veiled amnesty bills for Thaksin to the mass killings of suspected drug dealers, is simply “we have the most votes.”

http://2bangkok.com/...fy-thaksin.html

Robert Amsterdam, one of Thaksin’s lawyers, released a paper yesterday arguing for the impeachment of Constitutional Court judges. The country can’t have rule of law “so long as the country’s highest court is composed of judges who make so little pretense of independence and impartiality, and act with such blatant disregard for the Constitution they are sworn to uphold,” http://www.bloomberg...heast-asia.html

Edited June 12, 2012 by waza

[Moruya]

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.

Well when are you going to give the benefit of your knowledge to help my "not knowing what I am talking about"?

Tell you what, as the first question seems too hard for you to answer perhaps you could explain this:

In May 2006 a certain Mr. Suphot Towichaksachaiyakul petitioned the Constitutional Court to dissolve the Democrat Party under Article 63 of the Constitution.

(Note that at that time the relevant constitution the article was #63. In the new 2007 constitution this Article became #68, yes the same article #68 we are talking about now)

The petition was turned down because, wait for it,

The court refused to consider on the petition with the reason that the Article 63 (Now Article 68) does not allow the complainer to directly hand the petition to the court.

The petition must be considered by Attorney-General first.

http://thainews.prd....id=254905250012

Whoops! What a difference 6 years make...........................................

Now you're being disingenuous.

the right of citizens to protect the crown and constitution is permitted.

Alleged crimes of political parties must come from the OAG.

[lannarebirth]

they would, that was the whole point, to get it debated then a national referendum but they have not been allowed to do so. So who is talking utter rubbish? me or thee?

One of the complaints on how the 2007 constitution was accepted by a referendum was that it required a simple voters majority (50% + 1 of valid votes). A 2/3 majority for such an important document as a countries constitution has been suggested by various lawyers, political scientists, etc., but the suggestion has been brushed aside. The current government can use it's seat majority in parliament to push through a charter change and with Dept. PM Pol. Captain Chalerm in a writing mode has a new constitution in no time, followed by a 'nice' referendum'

Pushing trough (or should I say ramming down the throat) is not really the type of democracy this country needs. It simply doesn't address reconciliation one single bit. IMHO

"One of the complaints on how the 2007 constitution was accepted by a referendum was that it required a simple voters majority (50% + 1 of valid votes)."

I have read of many complaints regarding the 2007 referendum, however that one I have not seen.

IMO a simple majority in a general referendum is sufficient - and in an open, fair vote, difficult to achieve.

Changing a nation's constitution SHOULD BE difficult to achieve without broad, overwhelming consensus. Otherwise it becomes a devisive ploitical ploy to gain advantage, not a statement of a nation's core values as it should be. There's a good reason most enlightened democracies require supermajorities both in legislatures and refendums to change a nation's constitution

Edited June 13, 2012 by lannarebirth

[phiphidon]

Strictly speaking proposed charter changes are meant to allow the setup of a CDA only. The way the CDA will be setup and 'peopled' is another proposal by the Pheu Thai party which needs discussion, voting and accepting by Pheu Thai MPs only would only be sufficient. Please take our medicine, good for you.

The way the government led by the Pheu Thai party pushes through any laws they deem necessary to enable a more fully 'Thaksin thinks, Pheu Thai acts' makes it clear that the sooner some do the 'screaming and whining, the better. To wait till things are decided (either in form, or in fact), and even having it suggested seems fairly hilarious.

"Strictly speaking proposed charter changes are meant to allow the setup of a CDA only"

Correct, that's what the second reading accomplished i.e the make up of the CDA, who will be on it?

The bill - a change to Article 291 of the 2007 Constitution that cites only the process of charter amendment - allows the setting up of a new drafting body to draw up a new version of the supreme law.

The new CDA will be made up of 99 members - 77 elected to represent each of the provinces, and 22 members appointed by the Parliament. Six of them will be experts in public law, with six experts in political science or public administration, plus 10 with experience in politics, public administration, economic or social fields, or charter drafting.

The Parliament President is authorised to issue selection regulations and a 15-member panel will verify the qualifications of candidates nominated by university councils, social, economic and private agencies.

http://www.nationmul...d-30181992.html

You see any problem with the democratic way the above will be acheived?

"To wait till things are decided (either in form, or in fact), and even having it suggested seems fairly hilarious".

Of course it would be fairly hilarious, because it will not happen like that - what do you think is the point of having the representatives on the CDA? Do you think they are going to sit there and do nothing for 240 days - no, they are going to discuss and write a new charter.

After the members are selected, the Assembly is required to finish drafting the new charter within 240 days. The time count will pause if the House of Representatives reaches the end of a term or is dissolved. But it can continue working after a new House is formed.

In drafting the new constitution, the assembly is required to hear opinions from people in all regions.

However, the amendment prohibits changing the political system from a constitutional monarchy. It also prohibits changing the form of the state from a single state, and prohibits changing any clause in the chapter on the monarchy in the current Constitution.

The Election Commission will be required to hold a national referendum on the CDA's new charter within 60 days after it receives the draft passed on by the Parliament President. However, the EC must leave at least 45 days before holding the referendum as time to promote the ballot and publicising the charter draft. This must be done within 60 days but not before 45 days after the EC receives the draft.

In case the CDA does not finish the drafting process in time, fewer than half of the CDA members remain or the draft contains prohibited content, the Parliament or the Cabinet can propose a new assembly be set up to finish the draft.

http://www.nationmul...d-30181992.html

[phiphidon]

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.

Well when are you going to give the benefit of your knowledge to help my "not knowing what I am talking about"?

Tell you what, as the first question seems too hard for you to answer perhaps you could explain this:

In May 2006 a certain Mr. Suphot Towichaksachaiyakul petitioned the Constitutional Court to dissolve the Democrat Party under Article 63 of the Constitution.

(Note that at that time the relevant constitution the article was #63. In the new 2007 constitution this Article became #68, yes the same article #68 we are talking about now)

The petition was turned down because, wait for it,

The court refused to consider on the petition with the reason that the Article 63 (Now Article 68) does not allow the complainer to directly hand the petition to the court.

The petition must be considered by Attorney-General first.

http://thainews.prd....id=254905250012

Whoops! What a difference 6 years make...........................................

Now you're being disingenuous.

the right of citizens to protect the crown and constitution is permitted.

Alleged crimes of political parties must come from the OAG.

Not at all, the dems have complained that the charter ammendment is a threat to the the higher institution and the CC have accepted this complaint directly from the Dems citing Article 68 - this is the crux of the matter - i.e there is a standard of how to deal with complaints that have been brought under Article 68 - the Constitution Court has not followed this standard.

[phiphidon]

Now you're being disingenuous.

the right of citizens to protect the crown and constitution is permitted.

Alleged crimes of political parties must come from the OAG.

Not at all, the dems have complained that the charter ammendment is a threat to the the higher institution and the CC have accepted this complaint directly from the Dems citing Article 68 - this is the crux of the matter - i.e there is a standard of how to deal with complaints that have been brought under Article 68 - the Constitution Court has not followed this standard.

If you want to look further into this there was no need to take this "case" under article 68. Article 291 (that allows the ammendment of the constitution) states

Section 291. An amendment of the Constitution may be made only under the rules and procedure as follows:

(1) a motion for amendment must be proposed either by the Council of Ministers or members of the House of Representatives of not less than one-fifth of the total number of the existing members of the House of Representatives or members of both Houses of not less than one-fifth of the total number of the existing members thereof or persons having the right to votes of not less than fifty thousand in number under the law on the public submission of a bill;

A motion for amendment which has the effect of changing the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of State or changing the form of State shall be prohibited;

(2) a motion for amendment must be proposed in the form of a draft Constitution Amendment and the National Assembly shall consider it in three readings;

So IF there was a proposed " amendment which has the effect of changing the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of State or changing the form of State shall be prohibited"

it would have been rejected as being unconstitutional anyway!

This is all about the dems crying wolf and making suppositions.

Edited June 13, 2012 by phiphidon

[Crushdepth]

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

They already raised the possibility some time back. Speaks volumes about their ambitions.

//Deleted//

[metisdead]

An inflammatory post has been removed.

[binjalin]

Now you're being disingenuous.

the right of citizens to protect the crown and constitution is permitted.

Alleged crimes of political parties must come from the OAG.

Not at all, the dems have complained that the charter ammendment is a threat to the the higher institution and the CC have accepted this complaint directly from the Dems citing Article 68 - this is the crux of the matter - i.e there is a standard of how to deal with complaints that have been brought under Article 68 - the Constitution Court has not followed this standard.

If you want to look further into this there was no need to take this "case" under article 68. Article 291 (that allows the ammendment of the constitution) states

Section 291. An amendment of the Constitution may be made only under the rules and procedure as follows:

(1) a motion for amendment must be proposed either by the Council of Ministers or members of the House of Representatives of not less than one-fifth of the total number of the existing members of the House of Representatives or members of both Houses of not less than one-fifth of the total number of the existing members thereof or persons having the right to votes of not less than fifty thousand in number under the law on the public submission of a bill;

A motion for amendment which has the effect of changing the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of State or changing the form of State shall be prohibited;

(2) a motion for amendment must be proposed in the form of a draft Constitution Amendment and the National Assembly shall consider it in three readings;

So IF there was a proposed " amendment which has the effect of changing the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of State or changing the form of State shall be prohibited"

it would have been rejected as being unconstitutional anyway!

This is all about the dems crying wolf and making suppositions.

there was NO evidence they intended this and, in fact, they specifically stated the opposite - no change

[waza]

Now you're being disingenuous.

the right of citizens to protect the crown and constitution is permitted.

Alleged crimes of political parties must come from the OAG.

Not at all, the dems have complained that the charter ammendment is a threat to the the higher institution and the CC have accepted this complaint directly from the Dems citing Article 68 - this is the crux of the matter - i.e there is a standard of how to deal with complaints that have been brought under Article 68 - the Constitution Court has not followed this standard.

If you want to look further into this there was no need to take this "case" under article 68. Article 291 (that allows the ammendment of the constitution) states

Section 291. An amendment of the Constitution may be made only under the rules and procedure as follows:

(1) a motion for amendment must be proposed either by the Council of Ministers or members of the House of Representatives of not less than one-fifth of the total number of the existing members of the House of Representatives or members of both Houses of not less than one-fifth of the total number of the existing members thereof or persons having the right to votes of not less than fifty thousand in number under the law on the public submission of a bill;

A motion for amendment which has the effect of changing the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of State or changing the form of State shall be prohibited;

(2) a motion for amendment must be proposed in the form of a draft Constitution Amendment and the National Assembly shall consider it in three readings;

So IF there was a proposed " amendment which has the effect of changing the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of State or changing the form of State shall be prohibited"

it would have been rejected as being unconstitutional anyway!

This is all about the dems crying wolf and making suppositions.

there was NO evidence they intended this and, in fact, they specifically stated the opposite - no change

Well you armchair constitutional lawyers you must be wrong............

The Constitution Court yesterday insisted it had the power to rule on a case in which the Cabinet and coalition parties, among others, are accused of trying to overthrow the country's democratic regime by amending the Constitution to allow the drafting of a new one.

In a statement, the court said the decision by the Office of the Attorney-General on Thursday not to forward to the court similar petitions filed earlier with the agency would not affect the court's review of the case.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/561236-constitution-court-insists-on-hearing-thai-charter-case/

[phiphidon]

Well you armchair constitutional lawyers you must be wrong............

The Constitution Court yesterday insisted it had the power to rule on a case in which the Cabinet and coalition parties, among others, are accused of trying to overthrow the country's democratic regime by amending the Constitution to allow the drafting of a new one.

In a statement, the court said the decision by the Office of the Attorney-General on Thursday not to forward to the court similar petitions filed earlier with the agency would not affect the court's review of the case.

http://www.thaivisa....i-charter-case/

Well it's not going to say it's wrong is it? They'll just find a way to prove they're right - then you will see some arguments going off.

I'd love to see the dems provide a defence for their accusations.

Dems: Well they're going to overthrow the Head of State innit?

Government Lawyer: Article 291 of the constitution states;

Section 291. An amendment of the Constitution may be made only under the rules and procedure as follows:

(1) a motion for amendment must be proposed either by the Council of Ministers or members of the House of Representatives of not less than one-fifth of the total number of the existing members of the House of Representatives or members of both Houses of not less than one-fifth of the total number of the existing members thereof or persons having the right to votes of not less than fifty thousand in number under the law on the public submission of a bill;

A motion for amendment which has the effect of changing the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of State or changing the form of State shall be prohibited;

(2) a motion for amendment must be proposed in the form of a draft Constitution Amendment and the National Assembly shall consider it in three readings;

Dems: Well we've looked in the crystal ball and they are gonna do it, really..........................

Edited June 13, 2012 by phiphidon

[rubl]

The amazing aspect of this particular topic is the large number of posters who seem to be able to read, quote and understand Thai law which in it's defining, valid and legal state is in Thai only. The easy with which various accusations are made (as part of opinions) and how the difference between asked, told, ordered, between said, alleged, stated, is deemed unimportant when written down here in English makes me wonder how 'real' lawyers & judges would regard proceedings here on TV.

[phiphidon]

The amazing aspect of this particular topic is the large number of posters who seem to be able to read, quote and understand Thai law which in it's defining, valid and legal state is in Thai only. The easy with which various accusations are made (as part of opinions) and how the difference between asked, told, ordered, between said, alleged, stated, is deemed unimportant when written down here in English makes me wonder how 'real' lawyers & judges would regard proceedings here on TV.

The official accepted language on this forum is English. There are English translations of the Constitution available and there are other sources that translate Thai articles/judgements etc. to English. The posters discussing this constitutional crisis will not be called "to the bar" so I don't think there is any harm in using the resources available to share and discuss what information is available.

I take issue with your comment that "the difference between asked, told, ordered, between said, alleged, stated, is deemed unimportant when written down here in English ". I would say it is very important as various nuances of the English Language can make a big difference to the meaning as we have discussed before.

I suspect that when a verdict is reached you will accept it in it's English form or will you insist upon the unadulterated Thai language edition only?

Can we carry on discussing this now, even if we are not thai speaking lawyers?

Edited June 13, 2012 by phiphidon