Experts Question Court Decision Over Charter Amendment Bill

[Reasonableman]

Amending the US Constitution

Amending, The Right Way

Article V explains how the Constitution may be amended. It states:

The Congress, whenever

two thirds of both Houses

shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

As you can see, the constitution may be amended by The People (in the form of the congress) and by The States (state legislatures or state constitutional conventions). Large majorities (called a "supermajority") are required both to bring a proposed amendment to a vote (two-thirds) and to approve a new amendment (three-fourths). It is clear that the founders did not want amending the highest law of the land to be easy or trivial.

Amending, The Wrong Way

The Constitution is routinely, and easily 'amended' by the Congress. When the Congress passes an unconstitutional law, it has the very same effect as if the Congress had amended the Constitution without the consent of the states — government assumes powers not granted to it by the states in the Constitution. Passing unconstitutional laws is very easy. Once passed, repealing unconstitutional laws is very, very hard.

Edited June 15, 2012 by Reasonableman

[gregb]

If yuo know what changes are due to be made to the Constitution, then please tell all.

In the absence of anything to back it up, all you are doing is blowing smoke out yer bum!

Thats the whole point, how many more times!! The changes to the constitution can not be discussed and proposed until the CDA is formed. The ammendment to the constitution that the CC has blocked is purely what is needed to form a CDA, nothing more, nothing less. It's the dems that are blowing smoke up everybodies bum with their B/S about overthrowing the Head of State. Article 291 which allows changes to the constitution specifically states that this is prohibited. Read the threads.

The other problem, which all of the Thaksin supporters on here conveniently want to ignore, is whether or not it is legal to allow the legislature to decide on whether or not to submit the outcome of this CDA directly to the people without allowing the Constitution Court to review it for constitutionality. So there is a lovely recommendation that specifically states this is prohibited, can be conveniently ignored by the CDA, because it isn't actually enforceable on them. It is more of a request. Then, the Thaksin supporters in government can simply send the constitutionally invalid charter for a vote.

Now you have a serious problem. If the charter is approved by the people, which law is valid? The old one approved by the voters, or the new one approved by the voters? The Constitution Court will say one thing. Thaksin will say another. The army will be the one's who eventually decide.

The Thaksin supporters will tell you that the PT are nice people and would never, ever do something like this. Those of us who mistrust the demagogue in Dubai aren't quite so willing to take him at his word. The legislation must clearly spell out that the output of the CDA must be vetted by the Constitution Court for constitutionality BEFORE being submitted to the population for a vote.

Otherwise, any promises made today by the government are meaningless. Put it in writing. Let the Constitution Court vet the outcome of the CDA. Or are you afraid this would upset the real motivation for rewriting the constitution? And if that motivation is to overrule the judiciary in one of their legal opinions, then I would say the worry of overthrowing the Head of State is not without merit. The court derives its power from the Head of State, and overthrowing their decision could very well be considered an attack against the Head of State in my opinion.

This is a touchy issue, and people need to be less confrontational about how it is approached. Otherwise, the smoke being blown is hardly being done so by the opposition.

As I recall, the changes to the charter under Abhisit did not get reviewed by the CC, and of course it was just a parliamentary vote.

(correct me if I am wrong, please)

The point being that there is a process for adapting the charter, and that process needs to be followed. If it doesn't include the CC, then so be it. You might notice that in other countries (USA) the supreme court doesn't review constitutional amendments.

The Abhisit government did not use an independent body to adapt the charter. They did it inside the legislature. Only the PT are trying to escape responsibility by sending to an outside body.

And as for the US, they have well defined rules for how a constitutional amendment can happen, and there are no restrictions on what can be done. There is no overriding law such as "you can't overthrow the Head of State" for them to vet. Anything placed into the constitution is valid. That is not the case in Thailand, where certain amendments are disallowed by definition.

If the PT would like to leave the drafting process inside the legislature, then do it. Otherwise, if they wish to offload their responsibility onto an independent and unaccountable body, then the Constitution Court needs to vet whatever they come out with for compliance with the highest law of the land. Remember, the CDA is NOT bound by the recommendations made by the PT when establishing the body. It is simply a request that this is what they should consider. The election commission is duty bound to organize an election after the draft is returned and the PT says go ahead no matter what the contents.

If all the Thaksin supporters are so sure that the CDA won't violate the charter, then simply agree to allow the Constitution Court to vet it. Seems simple to me, unless the real reason the PT has set it up this way is to do something less than completely above board.

Edited June 15, 2012 by gregb

[Moruya]

Moruya, reading comprehension is needed on your side.

I point out that there is not a CDA yet, which means that the changes to be made to the charter have not been discussed yet. So bum, yes, I have one, but it is not smoking.

On the other hand, I did point out some changes which I think would be interesting to propose. Perhaps you have some of your own?

So basicaly it's a jamboree, a free for all, anything goes.

I will add my changes - see below. I shall mail them to Chalerm for his melting pot immediately.

Moruya1 All Football and rugby matches everywhere shall always be available to Thais at no cost and on all broadcast platforms forever

Moruya2 Criminals and persons with pending convictions shall not be allowed to stand as MP, be selected as a minister or pull government strings from Dubai or other locations.

Moruya3 No crime of any politician can ever be pardonned or amnestied by the lower house

Moruya4 No crime of any politician can ever be pardonned or amnestied by the abuse of the country's constitution.

Moruya5 Pressure groups such as the UDD and PAD shall be disbanded forthwith

Moruya6 Political parties shall be responsible for publishing a manifesto at least 4 weeks before an election

Moruya7 The use of populist policies is henceforth banned. All policies must be for the good of the country and not individuals

Moruya8 Leaders of the now extincy political pressure groups shall no longer be permitted to speak in public

[thaicbr]

Tlansford...

What changes did Abhisit do to the charter? You mean the 2007 constitution right? Was Abhisit in power then?

sent from my Wellcom A90+

[Moruya]

As I recall, the changes to the charter under Abhisit did not get reviewed by the CC, and of course it was just a parliamentary vote.

(correct me if I am wrong, please)

The point being that there is a process for adapting the charter, and that process needs to be followed. If it doesn't include the CC, then so be it. You might notice that in other countries (USA) the supreme court doesn't review constitutional amendments.

Correcting you if you're wrong is a full time job for 3 people on shift!

Abhisit's government did not amend the Constitution at all.

[phiphidon]

As I recall, the changes to the charter under Abhisit did not get reviewed by the CC, and of course it was just a parliamentary vote.

(correct me if I am wrong, please)

The point being that there is a process for adapting the charter, and that process needs to be followed. If it doesn't include the CC, then so be it. You might notice that in other countries (USA) the supreme court doesn't review constitutional amendments.

Correcting you if you're wrong is a full time job for 3 people on shift!

Abhisit's government did not amend the Constitution at all.

Really? You have shift systems, that explains a lot. Two amendments, one to make sure he had a better chance of making up the numbers on the PTP at the election by changing the elected/party seat allocation (didn't work) which also included a change from multi seat to single seat constituencies to reduce vote buying (did work) and the other to Article 190 which changed how approval of decisions regarding outside countries were made (this was to do with the Preah Vihear business).http://www.nationmul...g-30148485.html

Abhisit had tried amending the constitution before back in 2010. He had 6 proposals then

The six amendments were proposed by the reconciliation panel on political reform and charter amendments, chaired by Sombat Thamrongthanyawong.

Abhisit said he had already submitted the proposed amendments to all political parties for consideration.

http://www.nationmul...M-30140755.html

and in truly democratic fashion said:

"I personally think the easiest way to amend the charter is to implement the proposals of the panel," Abhisit said.

"If each political party wants to add its own proposals, the amendments cannot proceed."...........

.................The prime minister said a public referendum need not be held on the charter amendments because the government had already assigned the National Statistics Bureau and other agencies to carry out such surveys.

http://www.nationmul...M-30140755.html

Edited June 15, 2012 by phiphidon

[thaicbr]

So you are talking about amendments not a complete constitution rewrite. Different thing me thinks.

sent from my Wellcom A90+

[phiphidon]

So you are talking about amendments not a complete constitution rewrite. Different thing me thinks.

sent from my Wellcom A90+

If that was the statement that I'd answered you'd be right. The statement was:

"Abhisit's government did not amend the Constitution at all."

The other question was:

What changes did Abhisit do to the charter? You mean the 2007 constitution right? Was Abhisit in power then?

[lannarebirth]

Amending the US Constitution

Amending, The Right Way

Article V explains how the Constitution may be amended. It states:

The Congress, whenever

two thirds of both Houses

shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

As you can see, the constitution may be amended by The People (in the form of the congress) and by The States (state legislatures or state constitutional conventions). Large majorities (called a "supermajority") are required both to bring a proposed amendment to a vote (two-thirds) and to approve a new amendment (three-fourths). It is clear that the founders did not want amending the highest law of the land to be easy or trivial.

It's a beautiful thing isn't it? I'm always surprised when supposed well meaning politicos would propose something of lesser value to the citizenry.

[Reasonableman]

The Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand is supposed to be the supreme law of Thailand. Yet since a forced change from an absolute monarchy to a constitutional democracy in 1932, Thailand has had seventeen charters and constitutions.

[phiphidon]

The Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand is supposed to be the supreme law of Thailand. Yet since a forced change from an absolute monarchy to a constitutional democracy in 1932, Thailand has had seventeen charters and constitutions.

Is that a vote for the good old days or just an observation?

[rubl]

It's a free vote so it's up to the dems to put a convincing enough argument forward for their point of view to win votes.

What do you propose as an alternative, give the dems more votes as a kind of handicap for not getting enough MP's elected?

Bravo!, phiphidon. Your sense of humour and the absurd starts to improve. "it's a free vote"

"Chart Thai Pattana Party chief adviser Banharn Silapa-archa has acknowledged that Thaksin Shinawatra called him after Tuesday's Parliament session, in which the legislature failed to vote on whether to comply with the Constitution Court's order to halt the third reading of the charter-change bill.

...

Thaksin called me at 4 pm. But I assured him that it won't happen again, and he understood." Banharn said."

If only this topic was about Thaksin, then we could adapt the slogan slightly to "Thaksin phones, Pheu Thai votes"

[rubl]

Actually it had NOT been agreed. The Phua Thai party refused to do two of the amendments requested by the Democrats. As linked previously.

Thats really the point Phua Thai have the majority (14 million voters) but the Democrats also received 11 million votes so their voice should be heard and in most if not all democratic governments it would be.

sent from my Wellcom A90+

They didn't refuse "to do two of the amendments requested by the Democrats", they had a vote on the proposals. Their voice was heard. Thats how democracy works I'm afraid. One of the amendments was this, I don't know the other one.

MPs and senators yesterday proposed that people who join the drafting assembly be banned from holding a political post for five years However the proposal was defeated in a vote.

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

The government refused to even consider two other demands a bit earlier. Maybe between 25/04 and 15/05 voted on, maybe just ignored

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/breakingnews/Coalition-draws-the-line-at-CDA-formation-30180674.html

[phiphidon]

It's a free vote so it's up to the dems to put a convincing enough argument forward for their point of view to win votes.

What do you propose as an alternative, give the dems more votes as a kind of handicap for not getting enough MP's elected?

Bravo!, phiphidon. Your sense of humour and the absurd starts to improve. "it's a free vote"

"Chart Thai Pattana Party chief adviser Banharn Silapa-archa has acknowledged that Thaksin Shinawatra called him after Tuesday's Parliament session, in which the legislature failed to vote on whether to comply with the Constitution Court's order to halt the third reading of the charter-change bill.

...

Thaksin called me at 4 pm. But I assured him that it won't happen again, and he understood." Banharn said."

http://www.thaivisa....n/#entry5390911

If only this topic was about Thaksin, then we could adapt the slogan slightly to "Thaksin phones, Pheu Thai votes"

Like these I mentioned earlier at least the PTP held a vote - better than no vote

"I personally think the easiest way to amend the charter is to implement the proposals of the panel," Abhisit said.

"If each political party wants to add its own proposals, the amendments cannot proceed."...........

.................The prime minister said a public referendum need not be held on the charter amendments because the government had already assigned the National Statistics Bureau and other agencies to carry out such surveys.

Edited June 15, 2012 by phiphidon

[thaicbr]

A vote for what. When?

sent from my Wellcom A90+

[rubl]

It's a free vote so it's up to the dems to put a convincing enough argument forward for their point of view to win votes.

What do you propose as an alternative, give the dems more votes as a kind of handicap for not getting enough MP's elected?

Bravo!, phiphidon. Your sense of humour and the absurd starts to improve. "it's a free vote"

"Chart Thai Pattana Party chief adviser Banharn Silapa-archa has acknowledged that Thaksin Shinawatra called him after Tuesday's Parliament session, in which the legislature failed to vote on whether to comply with the Constitution Court's order to halt the third reading of the charter-change bill.

...

Thaksin called me at 4 pm. But I assured him that it won't happen again, and he understood." Banharn said."

http://www.thaivisa....n/#entry5390911

If only this topic was about Thaksin, then we could adapt the slogan slightly to "Thaksin phones, Pheu Thai votes"

Like these I mentioned earlier at least the PTP held a vote - better than no vote

"I personally think the easiest way to amend the charter is to implement the proposals of the panel," Abhisit said.

"If each political party wants to add its own proposals, the amendments cannot proceed."...........

.................The prime minister said a public referendum need not be held on the charter amendments because the government had already assigned the National Statistics Bureau and other agencies to carry out such surveys.

The quotes are from an October 2010 article which also had

"A charter amendment draft proposed by the reform panel will be submitted to Cabinet for consideration next week, Prime Minister of Thailand Abhisit Vejjajiva said yesterday.

If there was agreement about the draft by all political parties, the six amendments would be submitted to Parliament for reading within the current session, the PM said."

http://www.visit-tha...t-Proposal.aspx

Anyway, the current government has decided not to start the 3rd reading of the charter amendment proposal, probably because they couldn't vote on it yet. Fun starts again on the first of August

Edited June 15, 2012 by rubl

[gand]

Debating laws in Thailand? Get serious.

[phiphidon]

It's a free vote so it's up to the dems to put a convincing enough argument forward for their point of view to win votes.

What do you propose as an alternative, give the dems more votes as a kind of handicap for not getting enough MP's elected?

Bravo!, phiphidon. Your sense of humour and the absurd starts to improve. "it's a free vote"

"Chart Thai Pattana Party chief adviser Banharn Silapa-archa has acknowledged that Thaksin Shinawatra called him after Tuesday's Parliament session, in which the legislature failed to vote on whether to comply with the Constitution Court's order to halt the third reading of the charter-change bill.

...

Thaksin called me at 4 pm. But I assured him that it won't happen again, and he understood." Banharn said."

http://www.thaivisa....n/#entry5390911

If only this topic was about Thaksin, then we could adapt the slogan slightly to "Thaksin phones, Pheu Thai votes"

Like these I mentioned earlier at least the PTP held a vote - better than no vote

"I personally think the easiest way to amend the charter is to implement the proposals of the panel," Abhisit said.

"If each political party wants to add its own proposals, the amendments cannot proceed."...........

.................The prime minister said a public referendum need not be held on the charter amendments because the government had already assigned the National Statistics Bureau and other agencies to carry out such surveys.

The quotes are from an October 2010 article which also had

"A charter amendment draft proposed by the reform panel will be submitted to Cabinet for consideration next week, Prime Minister of Thailand Abhisit Vejjajiva said yesterday.

If there was agreement about the draft by all political parties, the six amendments would be submitted to Parliament for reading within the current session, the PM said."

http://www.visit-tha...t-Proposal.aspx

Anyway, the current government has decided not to start the 3rd reading of the charter amendment proposal, probably because they couldn't vote on it yet. Fun starts again on the first of August

So you decided to totally ignore the part where he said that no proposals to the amendments his party had put forward were allowed, followed by the fact that the public didn't get to vote on those amendments because they'd already done a survey. Thats "democratic" party democracy for you..............

[Crushdepth]

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?

Interestingly, there is precious little to discuss about charter changes at the moment - only the dems maneuvering to block the process before there is even a CDA.

IMO unless the CC does jump in and stop the process, then we'll soon have something interesting to talk about regarding the proposed changes. Personally, it would be interesting if they make the Senate 100 elected again. Since the Senate is part of the judicial appointment process and the judges are part of the Senate appointment process, this leads to a bizarre undemocratic situation. I also think that it should be harder to ban a political party - not that there can't still be strict penalties for inappropriate behavior, just that this does not need to be a trigger to eliminate an entire party. As has already been seen in recent years, this gives the judiciary the power to reverse the will of the voters.

I think the problem has been the political parties has been perverting the will of the voters by buying and coercing votes, buying and coercing political parties and buying politicians. The Judiciary should have the power to correct and punish this and provide checks and balances on Politicians and political parties behaviour.

If a politician breaks the law, there should be penalties - absolutely.

But does the court need to dissolve a party completely? IMO, no.

This is a creation of the Junta. It allows a court to overturn an election. That is a historical fact, and in the current events with the CC the nation reported that the PTP could be dissolved if the court ruled against it. That would, essentially overturn another election. According to observers, there wasn't fraud in the last election. Should the results of a popular election be annulled by 9 justices?

It seems much easier to manipulate 9 justices than to manipulate 45 million voters... Maybe that is the appeal of such a rule?

The fact is that the CURRENT LAW requires the whole party to be dissolved. It's a heavy penalty, yes, because designed to encourage compliance. However, since we have serial offenders, it would also appear to be insufficient.

I don't appreciate your continued and pathetic slights against judges. Tell me this - who has the larger credibility problem: Thaksin, or the judiciary?

[philw]

Er................the judiciary, because they are are judicious, buyable, beyond comment and malleable.

[OzMick]

Er................the judiciary, because they are are judicious, buyable, beyond comment and malleable.

On a day when the DPM is convicted of shady land deals which benefited Thaksin, and Thaksin is indicted for another B10 billion theft, you claim he has credibility.

I've wiped things off the sole of my shoe with more credibility than either of you.

[tlansford]

Amending the US Constitution

Amending, The Right Way

Article V explains how the Constitution may be amended. It states:

The Congress, whenever

two thirds of both Houses

shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

As you can see, the constitution may be amended by The People (in the form of the congress) and by The States (state legislatures or state constitutional conventions). Large majorities (called a "supermajority") are required both to bring a proposed amendment to a vote (two-thirds) and to approve a new amendment (three-fourths). It is clear that the founders did not want amending the highest law of the land to be easy or trivial.

Amending, The Wrong Way

The Constitution is routinely, and easily 'amended' by the Congress. When the Congress passes an unconstitutional law, it has the very same effect as if the Congress had amended the Constitution without the consent of the states — government assumes powers not granted to it by the states in the Constitution. Passing unconstitutional laws is very easy. Once passed, repealing unconstitutional laws is very, very hard.

you'll also notice that it does not require a public referendum.

[tlansford]

- deleted - quotation limit -

Interestingly, there is precious little to discuss about charter changes at the moment - only the dems maneuvering to block the process before there is even a CDA.

IMO unless the CC does jump in and stop the process, then we'll soon have something interesting to talk about regarding the proposed changes. Personally, it would be interesting if they make the Senate 100 elected again. Since the Senate is part of the judicial appointment process and the judges are part of the Senate appointment process, this leads to a bizarre undemocratic situation. I also think that it should be harder to ban a political party - not that there can't still be strict penalties for inappropriate behavior, just that this does not need to be a trigger to eliminate an entire party. As has already been seen in recent years, this gives the judiciary the power to reverse the will of the voters.

I think the problem has been the political parties has been perverting the will of the voters by buying and coercing votes, buying and coercing political parties and buying politicians. The Judiciary should have the power to correct and punish this and provide checks and balances on Politicians and political parties behaviour.

If a politician breaks the law, there should be penalties - absolutely.

But does the court need to dissolve a party completely? IMO, no.

This is a creation of the Junta. It allows a court to overturn an election. That is a historical fact, and in the current events with the CC the nation reported that the PTP could be dissolved if the court ruled against it. That would, essentially overturn another election. According to observers, there wasn't fraud in the last election. Should the results of a popular election be annulled by 9 justices?

It seems much easier to manipulate 9 justices than to manipulate 45 million voters... Maybe that is the appeal of such a rule?

The fact is that the CURRENT LAW requires the whole party to be dissolved. It's a heavy penalty, yes, because designed to encourage compliance. However, since we have serial offenders, it would also appear to be insufficient.

I don't appreciate your continued and pathetic slights against judges. Tell me this - who has the larger credibility problem: Thaksin, or the judiciary?

Pathetic slights against judges is your interpretation, not my opinion. Sorry that you read it that way, but that is not my problem. On the other hand, if you want to take it outside, then let's go

I think the judiciary in Thailand has done harm to democracy in the dissolution of the political parties of only one side when it was clear that the other political color was guilty of the same sins - please don't tell me the democrats didn't engage in vote buying or that they did not also pay parties to do their bidding in the 2006 elections - those for which the TRT was banned. But the fact is the TRT was dissolved and the democratic party not.

That is my opinion about the effects of their decisions. The judiciary in Thailand is not apolitical. it is very political. The appointments by the junta and the changes in the 2007 charter made the judiciary more political, not less. It is not, as some seem to believe, a bastion of independent thought and good judgment.

why compare Thaksin and the judiciary? They are not at all comparable. But the judiciary does have a problem with its credibility. If it were to go so far as to find against the government in the current case and then disband the PTP, I personally feel there would be a significant reaction against the courts.

And Thailand is not alone.

Look at the supreme court in the USA - everyone knows the biases of these 9 justices. Realistic people know that the court will not allow the passage of campaign finance reform that limits money in US campaigns, so the current thinking is to pass a constitutional amendment. A difficult process but one made necessary by the blatant bias of the US supreme court in their ruling in Citizens United.

So the reality is that one should never assume that a court is unbiased. It almost never is.

[tlansford]

Er................the judiciary, because they are are judicious, buyable, beyond comment and malleable.

Thaksin and the judiciary are both players in the political landscape.

The judges have demonstrated their political bias already. Thakisin has demonstrated his. It is clear that some posters expect the courts to be independent when that is rarely the case at all. Why should we not expect courts that were hand-picked by the military junta to disband the PPP but not the Democrats? It is perfectly normal given the court's make-up - not a surprise at all.

But IMO, if we come back to what is democratic and what is not, then clearly voters in Thailand choosing a government is more democratic than a court dissolving that same government through the ruling of nine men.

IMO, of course

[tlansford]

As I recall, the changes to the charter under Abhisit did not get reviewed by the CC, and of course it was just a parliamentary vote.

(correct me if I am wrong, please)

The point being that there is a process for adapting the charter, and that process needs to be followed. If it doesn't include the CC, then so be it. You might notice that in other countries (USA) the supreme court doesn't review constitutional amendments.

Correcting you if you're wrong is a full time job for 3 people on shift!

Abhisit's government did not amend the Constitution at all.

Wow, appreciate your care, ... but wait,

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/561041-experts-question-court-decision-over-charter-amendment-bill/page__st__150#entry5392068

maybe it's not me who requires 3 people on a shift...

Good work there Moruya...

[rubl]

Like these I mentioned earlier at least the PTP held a vote - better than no vote

"I personally think the easiest way to amend the charter is to implement the proposals of the panel," Abhisit said.

"If each political party wants to add its own proposals, the amendments cannot proceed."...........

.................The prime minister said a public referendum need not be held on the charter amendments because the government had already assigned the National Statistics Bureau and other agencies to carry out such surveys.

The quotes are from an October 2010 article which also had

"A charter amendment draft proposed by the reform panel will be submitted to Cabinet for consideration next week, Prime Minister of Thailand Abhisit Vejjajiva said yesterday.

If there was agreement about the draft by all political parties, the six amendments would be submitted to Parliament for reading within the current session, the PM said."

http://www.visit-tha...t-Proposal.aspx

Anyway, the current government has decided not to start the 3rd reading of the charter amendment proposal, probably because they couldn't vote on it yet. Fun starts again on the first of August

So you decided to totally ignore the part where he said that no proposals to the amendments his party had put forward were allowed, followed by the fact that the public didn't get to vote on those amendments because they'd already done a survey. Thats "democratic" party democracy for you..............

Dear phiphidon,

'A charter amendment draft proposed by the reform panel', 'if agreement about the draft by all political parties ... six amendments would be submitted to Parliament for reading'.

Compare this with a charter amendment proposed by Thaksin the Government (or was it 'only Pheu Thai'), with controversial setup of CDA and it's powers, 'to rewrite the charter', and Thaksin phoning why didn't you vote on this. That's Pheu Thai acting on the demands of a criminal on the run. Amazing Thailand!

BTW 'honest John', you never acknowledged being somewhat amiss with your '"CC, for illegally ordering the stoppage of debate' earlier in this topic. Or was that just your opinion, just like your opinion I totally ignore something ?

Edited June 15, 2012 by rubl

[phiphidon]

Like these I mentioned earlier at least the PTP held a vote - better than no vote

"I personally think the easiest way to amend the charter is to implement the proposals of the panel," Abhisit said.

"If each political party wants to add its own proposals, the amendments cannot proceed."...........

.................The prime minister said a public referendum need not be held on the charter amendments because the government had already assigned the National Statistics Bureau and other agencies to carry out such surveys.

The quotes are from an October 2010 article which also had

"A charter amendment draft proposed by the reform panel will be submitted to Cabinet for consideration next week, Prime Minister of Thailand Abhisit Vejjajiva said yesterday.

If there was agreement about the draft by all political parties, the six amendments would be submitted to Parliament for reading within the current session, the PM said."

http://www.visit-tha...t-Proposal.aspx

Anyway, the current government has decided not to start the 3rd reading of the charter amendment proposal, probably because they couldn't vote on it yet. Fun starts again on the first of August

So you decided to totally ignore the part where he said that no proposals to the amendments his party had put forward were allowed, followed by the fact that the public didn't get to vote on those amendments because they'd already done a survey. Thats "democratic" party democracy for you..............

Dear phiphidon,

'A charter amendment draft proposed by the reform panel', 'if agreement about the draft by all political parties ... six amendments would be submitted to Parliament for reading'.

Compare this with a charter amendment proposed by Thaksin the Government (or was it 'only Pheu Thai'), with controversial setup of CDA and it's powers, 'to rewrite the charter', and Thaksin phoning why didn't you vote on this. That's Pheu Thai acting on the demands of a criminal on the run. Amazing Thailand!

BTW 'honest John', you never acknowledged being somewhat amiss with your '"CC, for illegally ordering the stoppage of debate' earlier in this topic. Or was that just your opinion, just like your opinion I totally ignore something ?

BTW 'honest John', you never acknowledged being somewhat amiss with your '"CC, for illegally ordering the stoppage of debate' earlier in this topic. Or was that just your opinion, just like your opinion I totally ignore something ?

What are you on about now?

[rubl]

Dear phiphidon,

'A charter amendment draft proposed by the reform panel', 'if agreement about the draft by all political parties ... six amendments would be submitted to Parliament for reading'.

Compare this with a charter amendment proposed by Thaksin the Government (or was it 'only Pheu Thai'), with controversial setup of CDA and it's powers, 'to rewrite the charter', and Thaksin phoning why didn't you vote on this. That's Pheu Thai acting on the demands of a criminal on the run. Amazing Thailand!

BTW 'honest John', you never acknowledged being somewhat amiss with your '"CC, for illegally ordering the stoppage of debate' earlier in this topic. Or was that just your opinion, just like your opinion I totally ignore something ?

BTW 'honest John', you never acknowledged being somewhat amiss with your '"CC, for illegally ordering the stoppage of debate' earlier in this topic. Or was that just your opinion, just like your opinion I totally ignore something ?

What are you on about now?

The truth, most of the truth and nothing else. Or in other words

""mumble mumble, toil and grumble"

It's getting more difficult by the day to make an original statement. Sign of our times? Luckily still, I'm original and unique and I'm sure a few posters here will be happy about that as well

PS you described yourself as 'honest John' a while a go when I questioned some remarks. I would never ever (of course) dare to describe you as such

Edited June 15, 2012 by rubl