Thai Court Says Referendum Needed For Constitution Change

[Thai at Heart]

RT @tulsathit: Urgent: Govt chief whip suggests govt ready to withdraw amendment bill (which aims to write new charter) and amend current charter instead.

Aha, the thot plikens

[nurofiend]

As the thread title says, "referendum needed for constitution change."

When the constitution was changed after the last coup, was there a referendum for those changes? If not, why are those changes still considered valid in light of today's court decision? Is there some statute of limitations?

nope, they changed it first and then put it to referendum

and yes, it is one rule for some and another rule for others.

[nurofiend]

The court also ruled that the people could invoke Article 68 to bypass public prosecutors to file the complaints with the court directly

this is the part i'm uncomfortable with though, i honestly don't think it was written to mean that anyone off the street can complain directly to the constitution court without reporting it to someone lower on the ladder first. i mean when you look at what's written and think about it logically of course.. but they were never going to rule that their interference was wrong, that was a given.

however if the dems use the monarchy again to make the court interfere again, they'll have zero credibility left.

[hellodolly]

Hmm... let's see... 30,000,000 votes at 500 baht per vote would only cost me 15 billion. They took 46 billion. OK, let's have a referendum...

Yes,... my thoughts exactly. PTP came to power in July 2011 through a "democratic" vote by the people and look what happened.

If they can win an election by manipulation and throwing money into the pot then it stands to reason that they could and just might do the same thing with a referendum.

We live in hope,.. let's hope for the best and deal with it as it comes!

I think they fear a referendum will send them packing. They couldn't get the majority of the people to vote for there party. Even the votes they got were for a lot of false promises. And for sure the ones who did no vote in the election will be voting against it.

It might get beat so bad that hey would have to resign.

[nurofiend]

Hmm... let's see... 30,000,000 votes at 500 baht per vote would only cost me 15 billion. They took 46 billion. OK, let's have a referendum...

Yes,... my thoughts exactly. PTP came to power in July 2011 through a "democratic" vote by the people and look what happened.

If they can win an election by manipulation and throwing money into the pot then it stands to reason that they could and just might do the same thing with a referendum.

We live in hope,.. let's hope for the best and deal with it as it comes!

I think they fear a referendum will send them packing. They couldn't get the majority of the people to vote for there party. Even the votes they got were for a lot of false promises. And for sure the ones who did no vote in the election will be voting against it.

It might get beat so bad that hey would have to resign.

it was always going to end in a referendum, so what are you on about?

[gregb]

The court also ruled that the people could invoke Article 68 to bypass public prosecutors to file the complaints with the court directly

this is the part i'm uncomfortable with though, i honestly don't think it was written to mean that anyone off the street can complain directly to the constitution court without reporting it to someone lower on the ladder first.

You shouldn't feel uncomfortable about this. They only ruled they had the authority to accept it, because everyone is affected by the constitution and therefore everyone has standing to bring a challenge. They never said they would automatically accept any challenge brought by the average Somchai. They still have the final say on whether the condition merits their concern or not, or whether they would prefer it be vetted by the Attorney General first.

Or are you implying the CC aren't competent to judge whether a constitutional matter is within their purview?

[Thai at Heart]

Hmm... let's see... 30,000,000 votes at 500 baht per vote would only cost me 15 billion. They took 46 billion. OK, let's have a referendum...

Yes,... my thoughts exactly. PTP came to power in July 2011 through a "democratic" vote by the people and look what happened.

If they can win an election by manipulation and throwing money into the pot then it stands to reason that they could and just might do the same thing with a referendum.

We live in hope,.. let's hope for the best and deal with it as it comes!

I think they fear a referendum will send them packing. They couldn't get the majority of the people to vote for there party. Even the votes they got were for a lot of false promises. And for sure the ones who did no vote in the election will be voting against it.

It might get beat so bad that hey would have to resign.

it was always going to end in a referendum, so what are you on about?

It says referendum for a completely new rewrite, not modification of the existing one.

[whybother]

It was all a storm in a teacup and Thaksin will eventually be back.

I see where Yingluck also had all the complaints dropped that were made against her. The Ombudsman stated that there was no case to answer.

A few people on here with egg on their face.

She had complaints of sexual improriety dropped. They made no mention of the conflict of interest issues.

Sent from my shoe phone

[Thai at Heart]

It was all a storm in a teacup and Thaksin will eventually be back.

I see where Yingluck also had all the complaints dropped that were made against her. The Ombudsman stated that there was no case to answer.

A few people on here with egg on their face.

She had complaints of sexual improriety dropped. They made no mention of the conflict of interest issues.

Sent from my shoe phone

The complaints were for sexual impropriety? Is this over coffee with constructors in a lounge in a bangkok hotel? I wouldn't want to be on the end of that lawsuit for damage to reputation!

42bn might be a worthy number to sue for.

[nurofiend]

The court also ruled that the people could invoke Article 68 to bypass public prosecutors to file the complaints with the court directly

this is the part i'm uncomfortable with though, i honestly don't think it was written to mean that anyone off the street can complain directly to the constitution court without reporting it to someone lower on the ladder first.

You shouldn't feel uncomfortable about this. They only ruled they had the authority to accept it, because everyone is affected by the constitution and therefore everyone has standing to bring a challenge. They never said they would automatically accept any challenge brought by the average Somchai. They still have the final say on whether the condition merits their concern or not, or whether they would prefer it be vetted by the Attorney General first.

Or are you implying the CC aren't competent to judge whether a constitutional matter is within their purview?

what i'm uncomfortable is precisely the fact that any somchai can present their challenge directly to the constution court, whether they accept it or not, it could completely cripple their productivity... there's a lot of somchai's.

They still have the final say on whether the condition merits their concern or not, or whether they would prefer it be vetted by the Attorney General first.

the whole point is that it shouldn't be vetted by the AG first, the public have the right to go directly to the cc, which i think means they are obliged to look at it, since the public would be intentionally bypassing the attorney general.

if the constitution court bring the complaints to the attorney general, do you not see the snakes and ladders aspect of this?

[culicine]

The question then becomes, can amendments of the current one be enough to whitewash wrongdoers? Will PT risk a referendum on a complete rewrite?

[Thai at Heart]

The question then becomes, can amendments of the current one be enough to whitewash wrongdoers? Will PT risk a referendum on a complete rewrite?

Possibly, and i doubt it. Of course they could always make it illegal to campaign against the changes. where would they ever get such an idea being lovers of democracy and all that?

Edited July 13, 2012 by Thai at Heart

[h90]

It was all a storm in a teacup and Thaksin will eventually be back.

I see where Yingluck also had all the complaints dropped that were made against her. The Ombudsman stated that there was no case to answer.

A few people on here with egg on their face.

She had complaints of sexual improriety dropped. They made no mention of the conflict of interest issues.

Sent from my shoe phone

The complaints were for sexual impropriety? Is this over coffee with constructors in a lounge in a bangkok hotel? I wouldn't want to be on the end of that lawsuit for damage to reputation!

42bn might be a worthy number to sue for.

not the lounge, it was a hotel room.

If she had some nice sex there, why not?

More scary is that she discussed something with him....top secret in a hotel room??? Discussed the kick back?

[whybother]

The headline is misleading. NO referendum is needed to amend the constitution.

The court case was related to the proposed discussion of amendments. The court ruled that the referendum is only required if the ENTIRE constitution is rewritten. In fact, the cout gave guidance suggesting that constitution be amended by sections so as to avoid the need for a referendum. Basically, the court tweaked the government's position and tossed a bone to the Democrats and PAD on the structure of the proposed Assembly.

The big loser here is the Democrat Party. Mr. Abhisit hung his hat on this strategy and all that he has done has rallied the Redshirts, demoralized his party and demonstrated that the Democrat Party has no understanding of constitutional law.

I don't agree that the Democrats are the losers. They don't agree with a complete rewrite. And they won on that issue. Now, the PTP have to have a referendum before they make a wholesale change or they have to change the constitution piece by piece.

The red shirts look a bit stupid with their threats to kidnap the judges and to start a civil war.

Sent from my shoe phone

[nurofiend]

It says referendum for a completely new rewrite, not modification of the existing one.

i just mean they had talked about it being put up for referendum after the third reading.

[nurofiend]

It was all a storm in a teacup and Thaksin will eventually be back.

I see where Yingluck also had all the complaints dropped that were made against her. The Ombudsman stated that there was no case to answer.

A few people on here with egg on their face.

She had complaints of sexual improriety dropped. They made no mention of the conflict of interest issues.

Sent from my shoe phone

The complaints were for sexual impropriety? Is this over coffee with constructors in a lounge in a bangkok hotel? I wouldn't want to be on the end of that lawsuit for damage to reputation!

42bn might be a worthy number to sue for.

not the lounge, it was a hotel room.

If she had some nice sex there, why not?

More scary is that she discussed something with him....top secret in a hotel room??? Discussed the kick back?

it wasn't a 'hotel room' as you put it.

yes it was a room in a hotel but it wasn't a 'hotel room'.

if you're not being purposefully obtuse then i suggest you go read.

[whybother]

the whole point is that it shouldn't be vetted by the AG first, the public have the right to go directly to the cc, which i think means they are obliged to look at it, since the public would be intentionally bypassing the attorney general.

if the constitution court bring the complaints to the attorney general, do you not see the snakes and ladders aspect of this?

When the AG is potentially biased because he is appointed by the government, the people should have an alternative to bring up complaints against the government.

Sent from my shoe phone

[Thai at Heart]

It was all a storm in a teacup and Thaksin will eventually be back.

I see where Yingluck also had all the complaints dropped that were made against her. The Ombudsman stated that there was no case to answer.

A few people on here with egg on their face.

She had complaints of sexual improriety dropped. They made no mention of the conflict of interest issues.

Sent from my shoe phone

The complaints were for sexual impropriety? Is this over coffee with constructors in a lounge in a bangkok hotel? I wouldn't want to be on the end of that lawsuit for damage to reputation!

42bn might be a worthy number to sue for.

not the lounge, it was a hotel room.

If she had some nice sex there, why not?

More scary is that she discussed something with him....top secret in a hotel room??? Discussed the kick back?

Who accused her of this? Bizarre accusation considering the shinawatra propensity to sue for anything. In that situation she would be perfectly justified in suing.

[gregb]

She had complaints of sexual improriety dropped. They made no mention of the conflict of interest issues.

Sent from my shoe phone

The complaints were for sexual impropriety? Is this over coffee with constructors in a lounge in a bangkok hotel? I wouldn't want to be on the end of that lawsuit for damage to reputation!

42bn might be a worthy number to sue for.

not the lounge, it was a hotel room.

If she had some nice sex there, why not?

More scary is that she discussed something with him....top secret in a hotel room??? Discussed the kick back?

Who accused her of this? Bizarre accusation considering the shinawatra propensity to sue for anything. In that situation she would be perfectly justified in suing.

She could, but anyone with even an ounce of sense would let the whole thing drop. The last thing anyone wants is for that scandal to remain in the public eye. The quicker it can be swept under the rug, the better. The Shinawatras may be corrupt scum as a rule, but nobody can accuse them of being stupid.

[nurofiend]

the whole point is that it shouldn't be vetted by the AG first, the public have the right to go directly to the cc, which i think means they are obliged to look at it, since the public would be intentionally bypassing the attorney general.

if the constitution court bring the complaints to the attorney general, do you not see the snakes and ladders aspect of this?

When the AG is potentially biased because he is appointed by the government, the people should have an alternative to bring up complaints against the government.

Sent from my shoe phone

do you think the constitution court is the right outlet to review the public's (potentially) thousands upon thousands of cases?

that's my point, not that it doesn't have to go to the AG... but that it doesn't have to go anywhere at all down the ladder first.

Edited July 13, 2012 by nurofiend

[whybother]

It was all a storm in a teacup and Thaksin will eventually be back.

I see where Yingluck also had all the complaints dropped that were made against her. The Ombudsman stated that there was no case to answer.

A few people on here with egg on their face.

She had complaints of sexual improriety dropped. They made no mention of the conflict of interest issues.

Sent from my shoe phone

The complaints were for sexual impropriety? Is this over coffee with constructors in a lounge in a bangkok hotel? I wouldn't want to be on the end of that lawsuit for damage to reputation!

42bn might be a worthy number to sue for.

not the lounge, it was a hotel room.

If she had some nice sex there, why not?

More scary is that she discussed something with him....top secret in a hotel room??? Discussed the kick back?

<deleted>, forget about the sex. It didn't happen. Stop even bringing it up.

The issue is, she had a secret meeting with business people related to decisions that were to be made in parliament. Initially she said there was no meeting, then it was a private meeting, and finally it was government related.

Sent from my shoe phone

[Thai at Heart]

the whole point is that it shouldn't be vetted by the AG first, the public have the right to go directly to the cc, which i think means they are obliged to look at it, since the public would be intentionally bypassing the attorney general.

if the constitution court bring the complaints to the attorney general, do you not see the snakes and ladders aspect of this?

When the AG is potentially biased because he is appointed by the government, the people should have an alternative to bring up complaints against the government.

Sent from my shoe phone

do you think the constitution court is the right outlet to review the public's potentially thousands upon thousands of cases?

that's my point, not that it doesn't have to go to the AG... it's that it doesn't have to go to anywhere at all down the ladder.

Parliamentary committee with a senior judge as chairman is so much better, but then i don't write constitutions.

[gregb]

the whole point is that it shouldn't be vetted by the AG first, the public have the right to go directly to the cc, which i think means they are obliged to look at it, since the public would be intentionally bypassing the attorney general.

if the constitution court bring the complaints to the attorney general, do you not see the snakes and ladders aspect of this?

When the AG is potentially biased because he is appointed by the government, the people should have an alternative to bring up complaints against the government.

Sent from my shoe phone

do you think the constitution court is the right outlet to review the public's (potentially) thousands upon thousands of cases?

that's my point, not that it doesn't have to go to the AG... but that it doesn't have to go anywhere at all down the ladder first.

I think you're making a mountain out of a mole hill here. The standard approach can continue to be to ask that any submission be vetted by the AG or any other body first. A court clerk could even make the initial recommendation and simply present it to a judge to be signed. But when the public is threatening to mobilize and civil war looms in the near future, a judge would have to be an idiot not to see the potential hazards. All they are saying is that the CC is the final authority on these matters, and that nobody further down the chain can prevent them from accepting a case that has serious constitutional considerations, because everyone has standing to bring a case directly to them.

They said nothing at all about being forced to rule on any case presented to them. All they have done is increased the options open to all Thai citizens. Submit your case through the AG office, or submit it directly to the court. Either one, or both, is acceptable. I just don't see how anyone can have a problem with that.

If anything, the court has has hurt themselves by removing an easy out that they could use to avoid accepting a case that is contentious.

[Thai at Heart]

the whole point is that it shouldn't be vetted by the AG first, the public have the right to go directly to the cc, which i think means they are obliged to look at it, since the public would be intentionally bypassing the attorney general.

if the constitution court bring the complaints to the attorney general, do you not see the snakes and ladders aspect of this?

When the AG is potentially biased because he is appointed by the government, the people should have an alternative to bring up complaints against the government.

Sent from my shoe phone

do you think the constitution court is the right outlet to review the public's (potentially) thousands upon thousands of cases?

that's my point, not that it doesn't have to go to the AG... but that it doesn't have to go anywhere at all down the ladder first.

I think you're making a mountain out of a mole hill here. The standard approach can continue to be to ask that any submission be vetted by the AG or any other body first. A court clerk could even make the initial recommendation and simply present it to a judge to be signed. But when the public is threatening to mobilize and civil war looms in the near future, a judge would have to be an idiot not to see the potential hazards. All they are saying is that the CC is the final authority on these matters, and that nobody further down the chain can prevent them from accepting a case that has serious constitutional considerations, because everyone has standing to bring a case directly to them.

They said nothing at all about being forced to rule on any case presented to them. All they have done is increased the options open to all Thai citizens. Submit your case through the AG office, or submit it directly to the court. Either one, or both, is acceptable. I just don't see how anyone can have a problem with that.

If anything, the court has has hurt themselves by removing an easy out that they could use to avoid accepting a case that is contentious.

If you can't see how impractical your suggestion is, you are mad.

All it takes us for assembled coloured shirts to submit millions of requests and the country stops. The constitution doesn't just extend to reforming lese majeste. Ok, environmental impact assessments? As much as i don't like big business dominating the little guy so much here. said company passes the requirements, and 10000 villagers industrially submit conditional challenges? Takes 10 years of their time to judge them all.

This us the ultimate absurdity of what they did by premptively jumping into this case. They will be deluged.

I absolutely prefer a clear and concise legal definition, of how, when where and for what reasons anything can happen, than "up to you".

This is the constitutional court not a customer service helpline.

Edited July 13, 2012 by Thai at Heart

[Roadman]

The court also ruled that the people could invoke Article 68 to bypass public prosecutors to file the complaints with the court directly

this is the part i'm uncomfortable with though, i honestly don't think it was written to mean that anyone off the street can complain directly to the constitution court without reporting it to someone lower on the ladder first. i mean when you look at what's written and think about it logically of course.. but they were never going to rule that their interference was wrong, that was a given.

however if the dems use the monarchy again to make the court interfere again, they'll have zero credibility left.

Thats the part I am very comfortable with and most thankful for. Its a clear shot (which was badly needed) across Thaksins thievies bowels that they can change the constitution to improve the democratic process but change away from the principles of that process, or rough shod over the democratic improvement process as they have been to date, then it is just as easy as it was this time for the CC to be invited in to rule.

If Thaksins thievies put forward a fair constitution improvement for a peoples referedum then the CC, and eventually the Army are not players and the movement towards democracy continues. Try and screw it over to favour the convicted criminal fugitive and the CC and the Army stay in the process.

Well done to the Dems for putting the issue in front of the CC and to the CC for a fair ruling of notice to the Pheua Thai thievies and more importantly their Red and UDD thugs to play by some the rules or the CC will step in again.

[nurofiend]

The court also ruled that the people could invoke Article 68 to bypass public prosecutors to file the complaints with the court directly

this is the part i'm uncomfortable with though, i honestly don't think it was written to mean that anyone off the street can complain directly to the constitution court without reporting it to someone lower on the ladder first. i mean when you look at what's written and think about it logically of course.. but they were never going to rule that their interference was wrong, that was a given.

however if the dems use the monarchy again to make the court interfere again, they'll have zero credibility left.

Thats the part I am very comfortable with and most thankful for. Its a clear shot (which was badly needed) across Thaksins thievies bowels that they can change the constitution to improve the democratic process but change away from the principles of that process, or rough shod over the democratic improvement process as they have been to date, then it is just as easy as it was this time for the CC to be invited in to rule.

If Thaksins thievies put forward a fair constitution improvement for a peoples referedum then the CC, and eventually the Army are not players and the movement towards democracy continues. Try and screw it over to favour the convicted criminal fugitive and the CC and the Army stay in the process.

Well done to the Dems for putting the issue in front of the CC and to the CC for a fair ruling of notice to the Pheua Thai thievies and more importantly their Red and UDD thugs to play by some the rules or the CC will step in again.

you forget the point that the democrats were wrong, their allegation was unfounded.

you think it's a good thing that politicians can cry monarchy whenever they find that they can't win by democratic means? because that's exactly what it was and i don't think it's a good thing at all.

and this says you think it's a good thing that anyone in the public can do the same...

people on here seem to think it's alright to act in a corrupt manner as long as it hurts thaksin, but isn't that why ye hate thaksin?

Edited July 13, 2012 by nurofiend

[gregb]

When the AG is potentially biased because he is appointed by the government, the people should have an alternative to bring up complaints against the government.

Sent from my shoe phone

do you think the constitution court is the right outlet to review the public's (potentially) thousands upon thousands of cases?

that's my point, not that it doesn't have to go to the AG... but that it doesn't have to go anywhere at all down the ladder first.

I think you're making a mountain out of a mole hill here. The standard approach can continue to be to ask that any submission be vetted by the AG or any other body first. A court clerk could even make the initial recommendation and simply present it to a judge to be signed. But when the public is threatening to mobilize and civil war looms in the near future, a judge would have to be an idiot not to see the potential hazards. All they are saying is that the CC is the final authority on these matters, and that nobody further down the chain can prevent them from accepting a case that has serious constitutional considerations, because everyone has standing to bring a case directly to them.

They said nothing at all about being forced to rule on any case presented to them. All they have done is increased the options open to all Thai citizens. Submit your case through the AG office, or submit it directly to the court. Either one, or both, is acceptable. I just don't see how anyone can have a problem with that.

If anything, the court has has hurt themselves by removing an easy out that they could use to avoid accepting a case that is contentious.

If you can't see how impractical your suggestion is, you are mad.

All it takes us for assembled coloured shirts to submit millions of requests and the country stops. The constitution doesn't just extend to reforming lese majeste. Ok, environmental impact assessments? As much as i don't like big business dominating the little guy so much here. said company passes the requirements, and 10000 villagers industrially submit conditional challenges? Takes 10 years of their time to judge them all.

This us the ultimate absurdity of what they did by premptively jumping into this case. They will be deluged.

I absolutely prefer a clear and concise legal definition, of how, when where and for what reasons anything can happen, than "up to you".

This is the constitutional court not a customer service helpline.

I would simply have to disagree with you. The court is the final determinant on interpretations of law. It is "up to them" to decide what they will and will not accept. There has to be someone in that position.

Even in the US the supreme court can bypass lower courts and hear any case directly if they feel it is important enough. And this is extremely rare. They only exercise this right in the most extreme circumstances. For nearly everything else, a petition is denied without having to explain why and the case is required to go through normal channels. What the CC is saying in this case is no different. They have the right, but not the obligation, to accept any case of critical importance presented to them. And they get to decide what is critical.

I'm not sure how you can consider a very normal function of a court to be equivalent to a "customer service helpline".

Edited July 13, 2012 by gregb

[longway]

The headline is misleading. NO referendum is needed to amend the constitution.

The court case was related to the proposed discussion of amendments. The court ruled that the referendum is only required if the ENTIRE constitution is rewritten. In fact, the cout gave guidance suggesting that constitution be amended by sections so as to avoid the need for a referendum. Basically, the court tweaked the government's position and tossed a bone to the Democrats and PAD on the structure of the proposed Assembly.

The big loser here is the Democrat Party. Mr. Abhisit hung his hat on this strategy and all that he has done has rallied the Redshirts, demoralized his party and demonstrated that the Democrat Party has no understanding of constitutional law.

I don't agree that the Democrats are the losers. They don't agree with a complete rewrite. And they won on that issue. Now, the PTP have to have a referendum before they make a wholesale change or they have to change the constitution piece by piece.

The red shirts look a bit stupid with their threats to kidnap the judges and to start a civil war.

Sent from my shoe phone

They have been looking stupid for quite a while, every time they try something on they just make it worse for themselves, now the cc says it can receive petitions directly, without going through the ag.

The UDD act like typical goons, try to intimidate their way through everything and have been deftly side stepped and look like the idiots they are.

Edited July 13, 2012 by longway

[nurofiend]

If you can't see how impractical your suggestion is, you are mad.

All it takes us for assembled coloured shirts to submit millions of requests and the country stops. The constitution doesn't just extend to reforming lese majeste. Ok, environmental impact assessments? As much as i don't like big business dominating the little guy so much here. said company passes the requirements, and 10000 villagers industrially submit conditional challenges? Takes 10 years of their time to judge them all.

This us the ultimate absurdity of what they did by premptively jumping into this case. They will be deluged.

I absolutely prefer a clear and concise legal definition, of how, when where and for what reasons anything can happen, than "up to you".

This is the constitutional court not a customer service helpline.

I would simply have to disagree with you. The court is the final determinant on interpretations of law. It is "up to them" to decide what they will and will not accept. There has to be someone in that position.

Even in the US the supreme court can bypass lower courts and hear any case directly if they feel it is important enough. And this is extremely rare. They only exercise this right in the most extreme circumstances. For nearly everything else, a petition is denied without having to explain why and the case is required to go through normal channels. What the CC is saying in this case is no different. They have the right, but not the obligation, to accept any case of critical importance presented to them. And they get to decide what is critical.

I'm not sure how you can consider a very normal function of a court to be equivalent to a "customer service helpline".

They have the right, but not the obligation, to accept any case of critical importance presented to them

the public have the right to bring their case directly to the cc, how does that not give the cc the obligation of having to look at it?

Edited July 13, 2012 by nurofiend

[whybother]

the whole point is that it shouldn't be vetted by the AG first, the public have the right to go directly to the cc, which i think means they are obliged to look at it, since the public would be intentionally bypassing the attorney general.

if the constitution court bring the complaints to the attorney general, do you not see the snakes and ladders aspect of this?

When the AG is potentially biased because he is appointed by the government, the people should have an alternative to bring up complaints against the government.

Sent from my shoe phone

do you think the constitution court is the right outlet to review the public's (potentially) thousands upon thousands of cases?

that's my point, not that it doesn't have to go to the AG... but that it doesn't have to go anywhere at all down the ladder first.

Thousands upon thousands of cases regarding the constitution?

There should be a process to allow someone to avoid a potentially biased individual. If the AG is the only person that gets to decide which cases a given to the courts, then that gives the government (any government) a powerful tool to decide what gets to the courts.

Sent from my shoe phone