"The administrative court is the check mechanism for anything happening in the parliament normally, or abnormally, should we say."

So your statement was far too broad. If you would like to change it, feel free.

BTW, you seem to have forgotten the role of the CC somehow in your cogitations (if we could call them that).

Why would I like to change it, that's exactly what I posted? The point was a play on words, obviously too subtle for you, it was the abnormal bit the checks and balances are needed for, get it? "I forgot the CC in my cogitations", No, I didn't. The CCs' remit is a check and balance on anything the government does that is not constitutional - or it should be. They seem to have rewritten the rulebook on this and therefore proved themselves to be a political player and not an independant court. There is a Seperation of Powers for a reason, rule of law, not rule by law.

Now hopefully you are not going to drag this out any longer as you are gradually trying to divert from your misunderstanding of checks and balances on the government

I assume you do not suggest we do away with the Constitutional Court because we have enough checks and balance possiiblities ?

BTW did the Adm. Court do anything?

I suggest the CC do it's job and keep within it's remit. However now that it has shown that its judges are a political body and not independant, something needs to be done about it/them - A new influx of judges may not be remiss.

The troops were replaced by Border Police so in a way, the government complied with the order to remove the troops whilst keeping both the Cambodians and Dr Tul and his Nationalist Nutters happy. A far better solution than firing cluster bombs across the border or throwing your toys out of the pram and threatening to take Thailand out of UNESCO, I feel, but that's just my opinion.

I would like to suggest the constitutional Court did it's job. Opposite opinions I guess

As for the troops having been replaced by Border Police, fine. Mind you the request to the Adm. Court might still be 'under consideration' rather than the court having acted to 'check and balance'. TiT.

BTW 'nationalist nutters'? Better stay somewhat more polite, this only provokes other people to come up with similar interesting names for red-shirts

The CC overstepped their remit and have now set themselves up as lawmakers, not a good position to take as a supposedly independant apolitical setup.

There are more than enough words for red shirts and the followers or supporters of them. I am well aware of them having been called most of them in my time on this board, so I really don't think my epithet will encourage more - it's all rather one sided anyway, I do hope you are aware of that.

I suggest the CC do it's job and keep within it's remit. However now that it has shown that its judges are a political body and not independant, something needs to be done about it/them - A new influx of judges may not be remiss.

The troops were replaced by Border Police so in a way, the government complied with the order to remove the troops whilst keeping both the Cambodians and Dr Tul and his Nationalist Nutters happy. A far better solution than firing cluster bombs across the border or throwing your toys out of the pram and threatening to take Thailand out of UNESCO, I feel, but that's just my opinion.

I would like to suggest the constitutional Court did it's job. Opposite opinions I guess

As for the troops having been replaced by Border Police, fine. Mind you the request to the Adm. Court might still be 'under consideration' rather than the court having acted to 'check and balance'. TiT.

BTW 'nationalist nutters'? Better stay somewhat more polite, this only provokes other people to come up with similar interesting names for red-shirts

The CC overstepped their remit and have now set themselves up as lawmakers, not a good position to take as a supposedly independant apolitical setup.

There are more than enough words for red shirts and the followers or supporters of them. I am well aware of them having been called most of them in my time on this board, so I really don't think my epithet will encourage more - it's all rather one sided anyway, I do hope you are aware of that.

Yes it seems somewhat onesided

BTW with "The CC overstepped their remit", you forgot to add "Thaksin himself said so"

"The administrative court is the check mechanism for anything happening in the parliament normally, or abnormally, should we say."

So your statement was far too broad. If you would like to change it, feel free.

BTW, you seem to have forgotten the role of the CC somehow in your cogitations (if we could call them that).

Why would I like to change it, that's exactly what I posted? The point was a play on words, obviously too subtle for you, it was the abnormal bit the checks and balances are needed for, get it? "I forgot the CC in my cogitations", No, I didn't. The CCs' remit is a check and balance on anything the government does that is not constitutional - or it should be. They seem to have rewritten the rulebook on this and therefore proved themselves to be a political player and not an independant court. There is a Seperation of Powers for a reason, rule of law, not rule by law.

Now hopefully you are not going to drag this out any longer as you are gradually trying to divert from your misunderstanding of checks and balances on the government

Yes, far too subtle. I expected you would write what you think and write what you meant. A lot of people do that, some more than others. I should have know better. An especially high standard should be applied to the self-righteous, don't you think? So, in conclusion, "The administrative court is [actually, as you can see there is not only one] NOT the check mechanism for anything happening in the parliament normally, or abnormally, should we say. Is that what you really meant? Don't be shy. Everyone is fallible. Confession is good for the soul

"The administrative court is the check mechanism for anything happening in the parliament normally, or abnormally, should we say."

So your statement was far too broad. If you would like to change it, feel free.

BTW, you seem to have forgotten the role of the CC somehow in your cogitations (if we could call them that).

Why would I like to change it, that's exactly what I posted? The point was a play on words, obviously too subtle for you, it was the abnormal bit the checks and balances are needed for, get it? "I forgot the CC in my cogitations", No, I didn't. The CCs' remit is a check and balance on anything the government does that is not constitutional - or it should be. They seem to have rewritten the rulebook on this and therefore proved themselves to be a political player and not an independant court. There is a Seperation of Powers for a reason, rule of law, not rule by law.

Now hopefully you are not going to drag this out any longer as you are gradually trying to divert from your misunderstanding of checks and balances on the government

Yes, far too subtle. I expected you would write what you think and write what you meant. A lot of people do that, some more than others. I should have know better. An especially high standard should be applied to the self-righteous, don't you think? So, in conclusion, "The administrative court is [actually, as you can see there is not only one] NOT the check mechanism for anything happening in the parliament normally, or abnormally, should we say. Is that what you really meant? Don't be shy. Everyone is fallible. Confession is good for the soul

So the examples of the administrative court acting as a check and balance on a government abusing its powers I gave you are not real or convincing.

OK I'm out of here - not bothering to waste any more time with you.

Phiphidon's reply to my earlier post was that the Administrative Court was the control mechanism for the Government.

However, my investigations have shown that the Administrative Court deals with (shall we say) day to day issues and adjudicates accordingly.

The Constitutional Court limits itself to matters concerning the Constitution.

My reading matter, including the Wikipedia article on the Constitutional Court of Thailand, agrees that the CC has assumed that status, although there is much debate as to whether they should.

So like it or not, the CC is exercising the scope of its powers correctly.

So the outstanding argument is "should they have got involved?".

IMHO there's no point arguing that they made a judgement that was in their remit.

IMHO, the common- sense balance of their adjudication shows their value. I hope any replacement control mechanism can show the same impartiality

snip

The administrative court is the check mechanism for anything happening in the parliament normally, or abnormally, should we say. They are there to stop abuse of power by state organs.

And who stop theirs?

The question will never be answered. All the time people are involved there can be no 100% reliable system

Is the current Constitution that much of an obstacle to governing Thailand effectively?

At the moment we don't know as the ruling party aren't (IMHO) doing anything to govern. Surely the time to deal with any change to the Constitution is when it is an obstacle to implementing policies which benefit Thailand.

However, IMHO, the ruling party spends all its time looking in the rear-view mirror. Any chance of Thailand and its people gaining from the massive support the ruling party has, are remote.

OK I'm out of here - not bothering to waste any more time with you.

Is that a promise?

An absolute promise, a pre-next post promise, a promise that may or may not be a promise depending on how the ground lies after the promise was made, a promise that will be denied when it is broken the first time, or a promise that will be buried, not talked about and will flee the country at the first available opportunity.

Such choices.

OK I'm out of here - not bothering to waste any more time with you.

Is that a promise?

An absolute promise, a pre-next post promise, a promise that may or may not be a promise depending on how the ground lies after the promise was made, a promise that will be denied when it is broken the first time, or a promise that will be buried, not talked about and will flee the country at the first available opportunity.

Such choices.

Was the comment made to you. No.

Is it therefore something you need to make a comment on. No.

Phiphidon's reply to my earlier post was that the Administrative Court was the control mechanism for the Government.

However, my investigations have shown that the Administrative Court deals with (shall we say) day to day issues and adjudicates accordingly.

The Constitutional Court limits itself to matters concerning the Constitution.

My reading matter, including the Wikipedia article on the Constitutional Court of Thailand, agrees that the CC has assumed that status, although there is much debate as to whether they should.

So like it or not, the CC is exercising the scope of its powers correctly.

So the outstanding argument is "should they have got involved?".

IMHO there's no point arguing that they made a judgement that was in their remit.

IMHO, the common- sense balance of their adjudication shows their value. I hope any replacement control mechanism can show the same impartiality

Well the "common- sense balance of their adjudication", in your opinion that is, has led to a situation where anyone in the country can now make a spurious claim of Article 68 on any action the government takes that "may" threaten the overthrow of the constitution with the King as it's Head of State etc.

This means that the CC can be called in to affect/slow down/halt the parliamentary process at the drop of a hat - or more precisely somebody "assuming" that the goverment is doing "something" or "may be doing something in the future" or "thinking about doing" or "thinking about doing something in the future" that "may" involve the overthrow of the State can maliciously involve the CC in a sphere they should have no influence over. They are now officially political (as if they weren't before).

The Balance of Power has been tipped - it was alreadly listing heavily after the Junta written constitution - but now it's time to man the lifeboats - Rule by Law has arrived and it's not the government that is doing it.

But you're fine with that? - time to move beyond Wiki................

"Rule by Law has arrived and it's not the government that is doing it."

+1

"Rule by Law has arrived and it's not the government that is doing it."

+1

Another quotable quote from PPD. Rule by law, rule of law, how inconvenient.

How then should anarchy best be achieved?

"Rule by Law has arrived and it's not the government that is doing it."

+1

Another quotable quote from PPD. Rule by law, rule of law, how inconvenient.

How then should anarchy best be achieved?

Are you actually aware of what the saying refers to? It appears that you, yunla and rubl have some reading to do..............

"Rule by Law has arrived and it's not the government that is doing it."

+1

Another quotable quote from PPD. Rule by law, rule of law, how inconvenient.

How then should anarchy best be achieved?

Are you actually aware of what the saying refers to? It appears that you, yunla and rubl have some reading to do..............

Pray tell, oh wise one. Enlighten us poor souls

OK I'm out of here - not bothering to waste any more time with you.

Is that a promise?

An absolute promise, a pre-next post promise, a promise that may or may not be a promise depending on how the ground lies after the promise was made, a promise that will be denied when it is broken the first time, or a promise that will be buried, not talked about and will flee the country at the first available opportunity.

Such choices.

Was the comment made to you. No.

Is it therefore something you need to make a comment on. No.

hohohoho

Is that the criteria for posting now?

Have you never commented on a post directed at someone else? hahahaha.... yes, you have... tons of times.

If you post in the public forum, it's subject to a reply by all.

If you wish to communicate exclusively with only one member, that's what a PM is for.

.

"Rule by Law has arrived and it's not the government that is doing it."

+1

Another quotable quote from PPD. Rule by law, rule of law, how inconvenient.

How then should anarchy best be achieved?

Are you actually aware of what the saying refers to? It appears that you, yunla and rubl have some reading to do..............

I don't know about what others read, but I read what you wrote. Was there something else? And you wrote what you meant, of course. Seems we have had this discussion before. If you intended a different meaning, then you really should make that plain. It's not very user-friendly if readers have to figure out what you mean from what you don't write.

"Rule by Law has arrived and it's not the government that is doing it."

+1

Another quotable quote from PPD. Rule by law, rule of law, how inconvenient.

How then should anarchy best be achieved?

Are you actually aware of what the saying refers to? It appears that you, yunla and rubl have some reading to do..............

I don't know about what others read, but I read what you wrote. Was there something else? And you wrote what you meant, of course. Seems we have had this discussion before. If you intended a different meaning, then you really should make that plain. It's not very user-friendly if readers have to figure out what you mean from what you don't write.

feel free to add your name to the list. Rubl, UYunla, Rman...

Happy reading.

"Rule by Law has arrived and it's not the government that is doing it."

+1

Another quotable quote from PPD. Rule by law, rule of law, how inconvenient.

How then should anarchy best be achieved?

Are you actually aware of what the saying refers to? It appears that you, yunla and rubl have some reading to do..............

I don't know about what others read, but I read what you wrote. Was there something else? And you wrote what you meant, of course. Seems we have had this discussion before. If you intended a different meaning, then you really should make that plain. It's not very user-friendly if readers have to figure out what you mean from what you don't write.

The phrase Rule of Law, Rule by Law is generally recognised as a phrase and/or phrases. Google is your friend.

feel free to add your name to the list. Rubl, UYunla, Rman...

excellent post!!! reading the DPM has come out with some great potential amendments to the Constitution today and let's hope he can get this through - what a wonderful day for Thailand it would be REAL progress at last and, if successful, a lasting legacy for the PTP.

The gang's all here, eh? One by one they arrive and reveal themselves.

feel free to add your name to the list. Rubl, UYunla, Rman...

Happy reading.

You can start spelling my name correctly or not at all. Your post makes no actual point either on topic or offtopic. At least spell names right when you are not making any kind of post.

reading the DPM has come out with some great potential amendments to the Constitution today and let's hope he can get this through - what a wonderful day for Thailand it would be REAL progress at last and, if successful, a lasting legacy for the PTP.

Could you please explain why you feel Chalerm's proposed radical changes, which would be changes to articles in both the 1997 and 2007 Constitutions, are so "great"?

.

OK I'm out of here - not bothering to waste any more time with you.

Is that a promise?

An absolute promise, a pre-next post promise, a promise that may or may not be a promise depending on how the ground lies after the promise was made, a promise that will be denied when it is broken the first time, or a promise that will be buried, not talked about and will flee the country at the first available opportunity.

Such choices.

Was the comment made to you. No.

Is it therefore something you need to make a comment on. No.

hohohoho

Is that the criteria for posting now?

Have you never commented on a post directed at someone else? hahahaha.... yes, you have... tons of times.

If you post in the public forum, it's subject to a reply by all.

If you wish to communicate exclusively with only one member, that's what a PM is for.

.

I may indeed have commented on a post directed at someone else. However I would have had something worthwhile to say or add to the discussion as opposed to this, what's the word you use, burbling?:

Is that a promise?

An absolute promise, a pre-next post promise, a promise that may or may not be a promise depending on how the ground lies after the promise was made, a promise that will be denied when it is broken the first time, or a promise that will be buried, not talked about and will flee the country at the first available opportunity.

I may indeed have commented on a post directed at someone else. However I would have had something worthwhile to say or add to the discussion as opposed to this, what's the word you use, burbling?:

Is that a promise?

An absolute promise, a pre-next post promise, a promise that may or may not be a promise depending on how the ground lies after the promise was made, a promise that will be denied when it is broken the first time, or a promise that will be buried, not talked about and will flee the country at the first available opportunity.

One man's burble is another man's assessment.

You are not out of here, and you are still fighting your corner (whether that is considered a waste of time is your personal choice) but I think my assessment was reasonably accurate and it is option three..

(nice dummy spit at the end btw)

feel free to add your name to the list. Rubl, UYunla, Rman...

Happy reading.

You can start spelling my name correctly or not at all. Your post makes no actual point either on topic or offtopic. At least spell names right when you are not making any kind of post.

feel free to add your name to the list. Rubl, UYunla, Rman...

Happy reading.

You can start spelling my name correctly or not at all. Your post makes no actual point either on topic or offtopic. At least spell names right when you are not making any kind of post.

a simple typ-o Yunla. No name-offense intended.

As for my post to Reasonableman (Rman, for short), if you do not understand the point being made, it is not a problem. Apparently he has not really understood it either. However, it is extremely on-topic...

snip

The administrative court is the check mechanism for anything happening in the parliament normally, or abnormally, should we say. They are there to stop abuse of power by state organs.

And who stop theirs?

The question will never be answered. All the time people are involved there can be no 100% reliable system

Administration is things pertaining to just that the Cabinet and Ministries work.

The Administration court deals with subjects pertaining to Adminstrative bodies.

Not to the non-administrative bodies.

The Constitution Court deals with anything of a Constitutional question.

There is nothing in the statue that says at what point it's remit commences,

so they have to make that determination, some may not like that,

but then the laws should have been writen better, to not need interpretations.

But since laws and Constitutions are often done by compromises that have

little rational thought and great partisan leanings, the idea of a Body needed

to interpret badly written statute is obvious.

Perfectly satisfactory for those that are not getting the short end of those interpretations.

As Karl Popper noted;

" Nothing can be said that is not open to misinterpretation."

Laws especially fit this axiom.

reading the DPM has come out with some great potential amendments to the Constitution today and let's hope he can get this through - what a wonderful day for Thailand it would be REAL progress at last and, if successful, a lasting legacy for the PTP.

Could you please explain why you feel Chalerm's proposed radical changes, which would be changes to articles in both the 1997 and 2007 Constitutions, are so "great"?

.

be useful if their was a thread as it's off to[pic a bit (my fault) but as of this morning there was no such thread so thought I'd great i'd excite you all and make a passing comment on the good news

reading the DPM has come out with some great potential amendments to the Constitution today and let's hope he can get this through - what a wonderful day for Thailand it would be REAL progress at last and, if successful, a lasting legacy for the PTP.

Could you please explain why you feel Chalerm's proposed radical changes, which would be changes to articles in both the 1997 and 2007 Constitutions, are so "great"?

.

be useful if their was a thread as it's off to[pic a bit (my fault) but as of this morning there was no such thread so thought I'd great i'd excite you all and make a passing comment on the good news

after 10 days and 300 posts, being off-topic in this thread is the norm.

give it a shot

.

reading the DPM has come out with some great potential amendments to the Constitution today and let's hope he can get this through - what a wonderful day for Thailand it would be REAL progress at last and, if successful, a lasting legacy for the PTP.

Could you please explain why you feel Chalerm's proposed radical changes, which would be changes to articles in both the 1997 and 2007 Constitutions, are so "great"?

.

be useful if their was a thread as it's off to[pic a bit (my fault) but as of this morning there was no such thread so thought I'd great i'd excite you all and make a passing comment on the good news

after 10 days and 300 posts, being off-topic in this thread is the norm.

give it a shot

.

haha love too but regret - it's odd home some hot subjects never get an airing on TV