Thai Court Says Referendum Needed For Constitution Change

[Roadman]

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 three while country stops.

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.

Its not a faulty micro wave oven that it is being put up for debate but 80 odd years of a country's movement towards fair democratic rule for the people. The position where the CC has left its ruling can be tightened if the village dog is petitioning. Rather that option than "lao da khun khap" to the convicted criminal fugitives lap dogs. And if that takes time where no one is losing their lives to Thaksins goons then thats a good trade for the lives lost and pain suffered over the last 80 years.

PS - I have a feeling that the CC judges have put more trust in the village dog than the current governement.

Having said that, if pigs do fly then there is a golden opportunity right now with this ruling for Yingluck to show she is more than just her brothers lap dog and step up to the plate and do what she is supposed to be doing and lead this country forward.

[gregb]

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?

No. We hate Thaksin because we believe he is an evil demagogue who has the ultimate goal of running the country as if it were his personal fiefdom. All Thai politicians are corrupt. In my opinion some even more so than Thaksin. But the rest all know their place and know they must defer to others when push comes to shove...other people have to live here too after all. Only Thaksin is evil enough and divisive enough that he needs to be stopped at any cost before he completely destroys the country.

Just wanted to clarify that for you, because you seem to be confused about it.

[whybother]

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?

So all court cases should be stopped because the complainant might be wrong?

Sent from my shoe phone

[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.

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

yes... bogus cases, just like the one we just had.

as i said, i'm not saying the AG should be the sole person to decide... i'm not making that point at all.

i'm not saying it's wrong that the public can bring cases at all, i'm saying in practice it would be silly that they can bring a case directly to one of the highest courts in the land without any bureaucratic filtering of the possible nonsense.

if the public have the right to bring the case directly to the cc, then the cc would be obliged to check it don't you think?

they would have to wouldn't they, as it was meant directly for them and not anyone else??

[nurofiend]

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?

No. We hate Thaksin because we believe he is an evil demagogue who has the ultimate goal of running the country as if it were his personal fiefdom. All Thai politicians are corrupt. In my opinion some even more so than Thaksin. But the rest all know their place and know they must defer to others when push comes to shove...other people have to live here too after all. Only Thaksin is evil enough and divisive enough that he needs to be stopped at any cost before he completely destroys the country.

Just wanted to clarify that for you, because you seem to be confused about it.

oh don't worry, i've read the thaksin hate book on here many times, over and over and.. well you get the picture.

i should have said 'one' of the reasons.

[nurofiend]

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?

So all court cases should be stopped because the complainant might be wrong?

Sent from my shoe phone

what?

and please don't just repeat the question.

[Thai at Heart]

To Greg.

They still have to at least read and then consider every submission.

To deal with these few requests took how many Weeks and nearly brought the country to armed conflict. There are at least 17 constitutions in Thailand written and consigned to the bin already.

Now the court has to answer equally to somchai from yasothon, burin from the bangkok post, and mrs na nakorn nowhere coz they send then a letter. Who knows, i might get my wife to write in about the pig farm that had opened up next to my land with no eia.

There had to be a vetting process but not through the attorney generals office since he is politically appointed. I can understand what they are trying to achieve, but Thai law is littered with well intentioned laws that have been abused.

This situation us exactly up korkaews or limtongkuls road. Just pay to deliver 1000 requests a day and bring the court really down to their level.

[whybother]

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?

The courts (any court) usually makes an initial judgement on whether there is sufficient evidence to mount a case and whether there is a case to answer

Sent from my shoe phone

[nurofiend]

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?

The courts (any court) usually makes an initial judgement on whether there is sufficient evidence to mount a case and whether there is a case to answer

Sent from my shoe phone

do you mean the constitution court in this instance?

[gregb]

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?

Now you are being ridiculous. How about the CC simply invest in a 200 baht stamp that says "petition denied". I suspect with a little practice a single clerk could deny somewhere on the order of 20,000 petitions per day with this simple mechanism. I just don't see the argument you are trying to make. The CC has the right, NOT the obligation, to look at any case presented to them.

The CC is only going to accept cases directly that are serious. And they will know LONG before the case is presented to them that it is serious. They can tell by reading the paper. Or are you claiming the judges are illiterate and stupid?

One more time. The CC gets to decide what they feel is important enough to hear. Every court in the world operates this way. That is just the way it is.

[gregb]

To Greg.

They still have to at least read and then consider every submission.

No. They don't. They probably would in practice. But in your extreme example, if 1 million people submitted cases in an attempt to swamp them with cases, and there was no clear and present danger that dictated otherwise, it is within their power to dismiss them all without reading them.

They have the right, NOT the obligation, to accept any case presented to them.

[whybother]

yes... bogus cases, just like the one we just had.

as i said, i'm not saying the AG should be the sole person to decide... i'm not making that point at all.

i'm not saying it's wrong that the public can bring cases at all, i'm saying in practice it would be silly that they can bring a case directly to one of the highest courts in the land without any bureaucratic filtering of the possible nonsense.

if the public have the right to bring the case directly to the cc, then the cc would be obliged to check it don't you think?

they would have to wouldn't they, as it was meant directly for them and not anyone else??

It wasn't a completely bogus case. The government didn't win on all points.

Who decides whether it is a bogus case? If the AG is the only person that can bring cases to the constitution court then he can easily decide that any case against the government is bogus.

The people can't bring ANY case to the highest court, but they can bring constitutional cases to the highest court. Lower courts would throw it out because its not their jurisdiction.

Sent from my shoe phone

[nurofiend]

Now you are being ridiculous. How about the CC simply invest in a 200 baht stamp that says "petition denied". I suspect with a little practice a single clerk could deny somewhere on the order of 20,000 petitions per day with this simple mechanism. I just don't see the argument you are trying to make. The CC has the right, NOT the obligation, to look at any case presented to them.

The CC is only going to accept cases directly that are serious. And they will know LONG before the case is presented to them that it is serious. They can tell by reading the paper. Or are you claiming the judges are illiterate and stupid?

One more time. The CC gets to decide what they feel is important enough to hear. Every court in the world operates this way. That is just the way it is.

The CC gets to decide what they feel is important enough to hear.

yes and how do they decide that?

Now you are being ridiculous. How about the CC simply invest in a 200 baht stamp that says "petition denied". I suspect with a little practice a single clerk could deny somewhere on the order of 20,000 petitions per day with this simple mechanism. I just don't see the argument you are trying to make.

who is deciding that these 20,000 cases should be denied? this is the point you're so obviously missing.

[Thai at Heart]

Greg are you thinking what you are saying?

Today the constitutional court did a great thing for the country to judge on the merits of some spurious requests. But on the same breath you are saying they should selectively decide which requests aware spurious without considering them because some how the already know which requests are spurious and which not?

Are they telepathically able to read the requests before they arrive?

[whybother]

do you mean the constitution court in this instance?

ANY court.

I thought English was your first language.

Sent from my shoe phone

[nurofiend]

yes... bogus cases, just like the one we just had.

as i said, i'm not saying the AG should be the sole person to decide... i'm not making that point at all.

i'm not saying it's wrong that the public can bring cases at all, i'm saying in practice it would be silly that they can bring a case directly to one of the highest courts in the land without any bureaucratic filtering of the possible nonsense.

if the public have the right to bring the case directly to the cc, then the cc would be obliged to check it don't you think?

they would have to wouldn't they, as it was meant directly for them and not anyone else??

It wasn't a completely bogus case. The government didn't win on all points.

Who decides whether it is a bogus case? If the AG is the only person that can bring cases to the constitution court then he can easily decide that any case against the government is bogus.

The people can't bring ANY case to the highest court, but they can bring constitutional cases to the highest court. Lower courts would throw it out because its not their jurisdiction.

Sent from my shoe phone

the democrats case was a bogus case whybother, that's what i mean.

i've already stated my opinion several times about the attorney general in relation to this.

so do you not think the cc would be expected to check a case that, by law, was meant to be given directly to them and no one else? can you answer that question?

[nurofiend]

do you mean the constitution court in this instance?

ANY court.

I thought English was your first language.

Sent from my shoe phone

why would it have to go through any other court?

i asked because i wasn't sure if you were making such a silly point or not.

Edited July 13, 2012 by nurofiend

[gregb]

Greg are you thinking what you are saying?

Today the constitutional court did a great thing for the country to judge on the merits of some spurious requests. But on the same breath you are saying they should selectively decide which requests aware spurious without considering them because some how the already know which requests are spurious and which not?

Are they telepathically able to read the requests before they arrive?

I am saying the judges get to decide by themselves, and neither you, nor I, nor the country, can question the method they use to come to that decision. If a judge believes he is telepathic, then that is his right. But remember they can be impeached, and in this case there would be strong ground for claiming that he is mentally unstable.

In practice, most people won't submit directly to the CC, because they know it won't be accepted. And any attorney who presents it is going to be tarnishing his reputation if it is frivolous and there is no danger of people dying. This mechanism is there as an outlet for the extreme case where for whatever reason the traditional path is not working correctly, or not working fast enough.

If people abuse it, then yes, expect the judges to simply ignore requests that come this route. And I wouldn't blame them a bit for it. However, if people and the lawyers who represent them exercise even a small modicum of decorum, it is a great advance for the people of Thailand. The worries about how the court would respond to thousands of requests are ridiculous. There won't be thousands. And if I am wrong and it is abused in such a way, then the only thing that will be accomplished is the wilful destruction of a wonderful liberty.

[whybother]

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?

So all court cases should be stopped because the complainant might be wrong?

Sent from my shoe phone

what?

and please don't just repeat the question.

You said that the "Democrats were wrong" to suggest that the case shouldn't have been taken up by the courts.

Do you also suggest that a murder case shouldn't have been brought before the court because the defendant was found not guilty?

The courts will look at the merits of a case to see whether to take it. Then they will hear the evidence and make a judgement.

They don't say "maybe he'll be found not guilty. We better not listen to all the evidence and make a judgement".

Just because the Democrats weren't correct on all their points, doesn't mean the the courts shouldn't have reviewed the case

Sent from my shoe phone

[whybother]

do you mean the constitution court in this instance?

ANY court.

I thought English was your first language.

Sent from my shoe phone

why would it have to go through any other court?

i asked because i wasn't sure if you were making such a silly point or not.

ANY court (which includes the Constitution Court) will review a case brought before it to determine whether it is frivolous or not before they spend everyone's time hearing evidence.

Sent from my shoe phone

[Thai at Heart]

Greg are you thinking what you are saying?

Today the constitutional court did a great thing for the country to judge on the merits of some spurious requests. But on the same breath you are saying they should selectively decide which requests aware spurious without considering them because some how the already know which requests are spurious and which not?

Are they telepathically able to read the requests before they arrive?

I am saying the judges get to decide by themselves, and neither you, nor I, nor the country, can question the method they use to come to that decision. If a judge believes he is telepathic, then that is his right. But remember they can be impeached, and in this case there would be strong ground for claiming that he is mentally unstable.

In practice, most people won't submit directly to the CC, because they know it won't be accepted. And any attorney who presents it is going to be tarnishing his reputation if it is frivolous and there is no danger of people dying. This mechanism is there as an outlet for the extreme case where for whatever reason the traditional path is not working correctly, or not working fast enough.

If people abuse it, then yes, expect the judges to simply ignore requests that come this route. And I wouldn't blame them a bit for it. However, if people and the lawyers who represent them exercise even a small modicum of decorum, it is a great advance for the people of Thailand. The worries about how the court would respond to thousands of requests are ridiculous. There won't be thousands. And if I am wrong and it is abused in such a way, then the only thing that will be accomplished is the wilful destruction of a wonderful liberty.

If they can handle the deluge good luck to them. There are literally 1000s of petty infractions of the constitution in Thailand every day.

"wanted, secratery, female" ding..... Unconstitutional, discriminatory.

The constitution of Thailand mimics so much of the rest of the world and yet almost no one understand the rights it gives the average man.

And i absolutely disagree that a court should ever arbitrarily ignore a request. If they say anyone can petition without going through the attorney general, so be it, but as judges and public servants, EVERY request must be at least read.

Why should that right be reserved for some and not others.

Todays requests were proven spurious, submitted by a few politicians and a pad guy. Why should they be considered more important than say my wide and kids if they feel that something unconstitutional is going on. they are as Thai as any other, it says so in the constitution.

[nurofiend]

You said that the "Democrats were wrong" to suggest that the case shouldn't have been taken up by the courts.

Do you also suggest that a murder case shouldn't have been brought before the court because the defendant was found not guilty?

The courts will look at the merits of a case to see whether to take it. Then they will hear the evidence and make a judgement.

They don't say "maybe he'll be found not guilty. We better not listen to all the evidence and make a judgement".

Just because the Democrats weren't correct on all their points, doesn't mean the the courts shouldn't have reviewed the case

Sent from my shoe phone

no i said the "democrats were wrong" to suggest that the fact that anyone off the street can bring similar baseless cases directly to the cc is something i find uncomfortable... it's all about context you see.

The courts will look at the merits of a case to see whether to take it. Then they will hear the evidence and make a judgement.

does this apply to the constitution court's handling of public petitions?

[nurofiend]

do you mean the constitution court in this instance?

ANY court.

I thought English was your first language.

Sent from my shoe phone

why would it have to go through any other court?

i asked because i wasn't sure if you were making such a silly point or not.

ANY court (which includes the Constitution Court) will review a case brought before it to determine whether it is frivolous or not before they spend everyone's time hearing evidence.

Sent from my shoe phone

well there you go then, it's completely open to abuse from political groups.

[gregb]

Todays requests were proven spurious, submitted by a few politicians and a pad guy. Why should they be considered more important than say my wide and kids if they feel that something unconstitutional is going on.

Because nobody is mobilizing for civil war based on a constitutional issue about your wife and kids. People were about to die over that bill. It was a very shrewd move to accept it. So far it appears they engineered a compromise and not a single shot was fired.

I would say they have been extremely effective so far, and their judgement in this entire crisis has been spot on.

Edited July 13, 2012 by gregb

[Moruya]

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.

It is when all other avenues have been bought under Shinawatra control

[Moruya]

yes... bogus cases, just like the one we just had.

as i said, i'm not saying the AG should be the sole person to decide... i'm not making that point at all.

i'm not saying it's wrong that the public can bring cases at all, i'm saying in practice it would be silly that they can bring a case directly to one of the highest courts in the land without any bureaucratic filtering of the possible nonsense.

if the public have the right to bring the case directly to the cc, then the cc would be obliged to check it don't you think?

they would have to wouldn't they, as it was meant directly for them and not anyone else??

It wasn't a completely bogus case. The government didn't win on all points.

Who decides whether it is a bogus case? If the AG is the only person that can bring cases to the constitution court then he can easily decide that any case against the government is bogus.

The people can't bring ANY case to the highest court, but they can bring constitutional cases to the highest court. Lower courts would throw it out because its not their jurisdiction.

Sent from my shoe phone

the democrats case was a bogus case whybother, that's what i mean.

i've already stated my opinion several times about the attorney general in relation to this.

so do you not think the cc would be expected to check a case that, by law, was meant to be given directly to them and no one else? can you answer that question?

I just checked the front page of the Bangkok Post. Then went through the paper. I couldn't find any article along the lines of "Mighty Neurofiend declares case Bogus"

What should I make of this?

[JurgenG]

To follow up on the above debate, the democrats were not only wrong but criminal to start the whole legal action.

They know it was baseless and without merit and likely to start more trouble in the street but they went with it anyway. Why ? Because Abhisit is widely seen as spineless and out of touch with the country and his own party, so something has to be done to show that he was doing "something".

As some have already point out, the democrats have nothing much to propose to improve the lot of the Thai people, the current administration is doing a excellent job for that. Everybody, from the USA to the IMF, is praising Ms Yingluck for her actions to restore Thaiand good name on the international scene. So the only way for Abhisit to stay on the headline is to stir up trouble. Our only luck is he is as incompoetent for that as to win election.

Edited July 13, 2012 by JurgenG

[FOODLOVER]

To follow up on the above debate, the democrats were not only wrong but criminal to start the whole legal action.

They know it was baseless and without merit and likely to start more trouble in the street but they went with it anyway. Why ? Because Abhisit is widely seen as spineless and out of touch with the country and his own party, so something has to be done to show that he was doing "something".

As some have already point out, the democrats have nothing much to propose to improve the lot of the Thai people, the current administration is doing a excellent job for that. Everybody, from the USA to the IMF, is praising Ms Yingluck for her actions to restore Thaiand good name on the international scene. So the only way for Abhisit to stay on the headline is to stir up trouble. Our only luck is he is as incompoetent for that as to win election.

"To follow up on the above debate, the democrats were not only wrong but criminal to start the whole legal action".

Interesting that a red shirt plays the criminal card. What charges should be brought? What charges should be brought against Yingluck for condoning violence through lack of leadership in the threatening of Supreme court judges. Why did she not condemn this man?

"As some have already point out, the democrats have nothing much to propose to improve the lot of the Thai people, the current administration is doing a excellent job for that".

So proposals is your thing, you voted for the right party then because failed proposals and populists BS is their main platform. You got what you wanted a laughing stock PM to the world. FYI the USA does not always back the good horse .i.e YINGLUCK SHINAWATRA is that horse! To top it off she is a compulsive liar! No meeting at four season, yeah right. "Not my stock", so they change the interpretation of the law so she was not convicted of perjury before the court. If she were my horse she would be glue. She is not honest and has never been for the Thai people. Wake up and smell the red violence!

Edited July 14, 2012 by FOODLOVER

[whybother]

To follow up on the above debate, the democrats were not only wrong but criminal to start the whole legal action.

They know it was baseless and without merit and likely to start more trouble in the street but they went with it anyway. Why ? Because Abhisit is widely seen as spineless and out of touch with the country and his own party, so something has to be done to show that he was doing "something".

As some have already point out, the democrats have nothing much to propose to improve the lot of the Thai people, the current administration is doing a excellent job for that. Everybody, from the USA to the IMF, is praising Ms Yingluck for her actions to restore Thaiand good name on the international scene. So the only way for Abhisit to stay on the headline is to stir up trouble. Our only luck is he is as incompoetent for that as to win election.

It wasn't baseless, and it certainly wasn't criminal. The court ruled in the Democrats favour in one aspect, that wholesale change is not allowed without a referendum PRIOR to any suggested changes. And interestingly the judges didn't say that there was anything criminal about the case, from either side.

Edited July 30, 2012 by Maestro
Deleted nonsensical part of post.

[Moruya]

To follow up on the above debate, the democrats were not only wrong but criminal to start the whole legal action.

They know it was baseless and without merit and likely to start more trouble in the street but they went with it anyway. Why ? Because Abhisit is widely seen as spineless and out of touch with the country and his own party, so something has to be done to show that he was doing "something".

As some have already point out, the democrats have nothing much to propose to improve the lot of the Thai people, the current administration is doing a excellent job for that. Everybody, from the USA to the IMF, is praising Ms Yingluck for her actions to restore Thaiand good name on the international scene. So the only way for Abhisit to stay on the headline is to stir up trouble. Our only luck is he is as incompoetent for that as to win election.

Yes, it was so baseless the world was watching.

Saying Abhisit was spineless to start this is an oxymoron.

All the country needs to protect it from fascism is a few good men of whom he is one.