'Cut Court Out Of Any Charter Rewrite': Pheu Thai Lawyer

[phiphidon]

Pheu Thai legal adviser Chusak Sirinil said yesterday the ruling party should first amend Article 68 of the charter, seen as giving the top court the power to meddle in any rewrite. Once this provision was amended, the coalition could proceed to frame a new charter, the adviser said.

"Pheu Thai will strive for the rewriting of the entire charter," Chusak said.

With that one statement of intent, it is enough for another wave of Dem complaints to go back to the Constitutional Court to use as proof that PTP do indeed wish to rewrite the entire charter which was against the decision of the court. When will these idiots learn that if you want to do something then keep your bloody mouth shut. They are all after their 15 mins.

Thailand hub of Ineptocracies!

When the CC come up with a definite order of what to do no doubt politicians will follow it. When you specifically make ineffectual remarks in the judgement like the government "should" rather than "must" what do they expect. They are either a remarkably stupid and naive bunch of judges or they know exactly what they have done and are aiming at damage limitation.

[Noistar]

source please

plus - having 'allegedly' ripped it up, was the 2007 completely different to the 1997 Constitution.

If they kept some of the 1997 Constitution, were there any bits you liked, or is everything in the 2007 Constitution tainted by association?

I don't understand why people have a hard time understanding what happened in the coup. The elections were canceled, the constitution was abrogated, parliament was dissolved, the Constitutional Court was dissolved, the media censored, protests were banned, and just for kicks, martial law was imposed.

"allegedly" is the incorrect term.

thanks for clarifying ONE point.

Now, let's get back to the serious observation as to what differences there were between the 1997 and 2007 Constitutions. How much of the 1997 Constitution did they sellotape together and put in the 2007 Constitution, or was it a complete re-write?

It seems to be a point you are having difficulty with.

one reference of comparison is here http://www.thailawforum.com/articles/Thailand-Eighteeth-Consititution.html

Riveting stuff.

Now something simple:

The current Constitution is THE THAI CONSTITUTION.

Can we ignore where it originated? Its origins have nothing to do with what a new Constitution will look like. If so, it might give some credence to the vitriol meted out by certain posters.

It is here - like it or lump it, so stop whining about the military.

Certain posters are keen (obsessed) to let a spurious definition of 'Democracy' be used as an excuse for risking Thailand's future.

No looking in the rear-view mirror - let's look at Thailand's future which WILL be affected by the actions of this ruling party

1) Please tell me what is stopping Thailand moving forward with the current Constitution

2) Does anyone share my apprehension that any proposed changes are intended to benefit the ruling party, rather than Thailand?

Straight questions - can I anticipate evasive answers.

[animatic]

...a key legal expert from the ruling Pheu Thai Party floated the idea of gagging the judiciary before moving on to write a new charter....

Well this has been the obvious aim for much of the PTP governments history;

End any checks and balances to they and their liege lord doing what every they wish to.

What they apparently don't realizes is this will make a coup more likely than less likely.

Without checks and balances, one part rule from one headmans voice will mean

the army, yet again, becomes the only escape valve when egos and avarice run amok,

as they ALWAYS seem to do in Thailands political classes.

[Noistar]

If certain posters are wrong (I said 'if', I know it's highly unlikely), there may be an ELECTED non-red ruling party in the future, assuming the current election system remains unchanged.

I take it these same posters would display the same enthusiasm, zeal and obsession to allow the current simplistic definition of Democracy move the goalposts again.

What chance Thailand's future with a constantly to-ing and fro-ing Constitution, created and changed without any checks.

I realise certain posters are convinced the proposed changes will produce the Perfect Constitution so nobody would ever consider the need to change it.

Then again, perhaps the current ruling party will ensure that 'their', (rather than Thailand's), Constitution will be set in stone.

[tlansford]

- deleted -

I don't understand why people have a hard time understanding what happened in the coup. The elections were canceled, the constitution was abrogated, parliament was dissolved, the Constitutional Court was dissolved, the media censored, protests were banned, and just for kicks, martial law was imposed.

"allegedly" is the incorrect term.

thanks for clarifying ONE point.

Now, let's get back to the serious observation as to what differences there were between the 1997 and 2007 Constitutions. How much of the 1997 Constitution did they sellotape together and put in the 2007 Constitution, or was it a complete re-write?

It seems to be a point you are having difficulty with.

one reference of comparison is here http://www.thailawfo...sititution.html

Riveting stuff.

Now something simple:

The current Constitution is THE THAI CONSTITUTION.

Can we ignore where it originated? Its origins have nothing to do with what a new Constitution will look like. If so, it might give some credence to the vitriol meted out by certain posters.

It is here - like it or lump it, so stop whining about the military.

Certain posters are keen (obsessed) to let a spurious definition of 'Democracy' be used as an excuse for risking Thailand's future.

No looking in the rear-view mirror - let's look at Thailand's future which WILL be affected by the actions of this ruling party

1) Please tell me what is stopping Thailand moving forward with the current Constitution

2) Does anyone share my apprehension that any proposed changes are intended to benefit the ruling party, rather than Thailand?

Straight questions - can I anticipate evasive answers.

Actually, it is an interesting paper.

Thai Constitution:

Can we ignore where it came from? Or how it came about? No. Obviously not.

Given its origins, it seems perfectly clear why THAI people might want to change the Thai constitution.

It's already been amended by the democrats. Before the referendum, people argued for a yes vote with the justification that it can be changed later. So what is wrong about taking up that task?

Why stop "whining" about the military? Do you want people to forget their actions? Maybe you are one of the coup supporters, maybe you are not, but we can't deny history.

Your question 1 - already answered.

Your question 2 - what proposed changes? If you are so apprehensive, then tell me which of the proposed changes are making you apprehensive? AFAIK, there are only statements about what will not be changed.

Follow on answer to #2 (not wanting to seem evasive, ...) do you expect the ruling party to make changes which would not be favorable to them? Did the Democrats make changes which were unfavorable to the Democrats? No. The interesting point in this story so far is that between the court petition by the strategic geniuses in the Democratic party and the subsequent ruling of the CC, the process which was to go to an elected CDA has been thrown back into the hands of the parliament with a very secure majority for the government. There actually, IMO, would have been a chance to see some proposals from a CDA which would have been more balanced and perhaps more innovative than something that will most likely now be tightly controlled by the ruling party.

Since there are no proposed changes yet, perhaps it is that fact which is making you apprehensive.

[Noistar]

thanks for clarifying ONE point.

Now, let's get back to the serious observation as to what differences there were between the 1997 and 2007 Constitutions. How much of the 1997 Constitution did they sellotape together and put in the 2007 Constitution, or was it a complete re-write?

It seems to be a point you are having difficulty with.

one reference of comparison is here http://www.thailawfo...sititution.html

Riveting stuff.

Now something simple:

The current Constitution is THE THAI CONSTITUTION.

Can we ignore where it originated? Its origins have nothing to do with what a new Constitution will look like. If so, it might give some credence to the vitriol meted out by certain posters.

It is here - like it or lump it, so stop whining about the military.

Certain posters are keen (obsessed) to let a spurious definition of 'Democracy' be used as an excuse for risking Thailand's future.

No looking in the rear-view mirror - let's look at Thailand's future which WILL be affected by the actions of this ruling party

1) Please tell me what is stopping Thailand moving forward with the current Constitution

2) Does anyone share my apprehension that any proposed changes are intended to benefit the ruling party, rather than Thailand?

Straight questions - can I anticipate evasive answers.

Actually, it is an interesting paper.

Thai Constitution:

Can we ignore where it came from? Or how it came about? No. Obviously not.

Given its origins, it seems perfectly clear why THAI people might want to change the Thai constitution.

It's already been amended by the democrats. Before the referendum, people argued for a yes vote with the justification that it can be changed later. So what is wrong about taking up that task?

Why stop "whining" about the military? Do you want people to forget their actions? Maybe you are one of the coup supporters, maybe you are not, but we can't deny history.

Your question 1 - already answered.

Your question 2 - what proposed changes? If you are so apprehensive, then tell me which of the proposed changes are making you apprehensive? AFAIK, there are only statements about what will not be changed.

Follow on answer to #2 (not wanting to seem evasive, ...) do you expect the ruling party to make changes which would not be favorable to them? Did the Democrats make changes which were unfavorable to the Democrats? No. The interesting point in this story so far is that between the court petition by the strategic geniuses in the Democratic party and the subsequent ruling of the CC, the process which was to go to an elected CDA has been thrown back into the hands of the parliament with a very secure majority for the government. There actually, IMO, would have been a chance to see some proposals from a CDA which would have been more balanced and perhaps more innovative than something that will most likely now be tightly controlled by the ruling party.

Since there are no proposed changes yet, perhaps it is that fact which is making you apprehensive.

Naturally a forlorn hope to get an answer from a certain group of posters which doesn't involve looking back!

Give me some IMPARTIAL reading matter which details where the Constitution IS harming Thailand NOW. I assume you understand NOW, post 2011, up to TODAY.

As it is, I think we're going to have to agree to disagree

Question1 not answered - nice try, trying to fob me off, but all you have given is the usual reply about how it came about. Not the affects it is having which is holding Thailand back.

Your 'they did it first so we can do it' is the pathetic childish attitude of a particular group of posters.

My points are valid, your obsession with disappearing back to the past shows a complete lack of grasping facts.

Is the 2007 Constitution THE THAI CONSTITUTION or not? Presumably not according to you. I imagine your view is contradicted by all the available facts.

Thailand is being governed in accordance with the Constitution, brought about in 2007.

And what is wrong with my believing that a NEW Constitution should be for the benefit of Thailand?

The ruling party are NOT Thailand - if you forget that, any opinions you have are seriously flawed.

Once again you dive back to the past to bring the Democrats into it. Usual diversionary tactic. Seen it too many times from certain posters. Usually means they can't answer the question.

I don't condone what the Democrats may have done, but adopting the same allegedly 'bad' tactics doesn't seem beneficial.

Try to reply without going back to the playground, or not. Thailand's FUTURE is at stake. The sooner you appreciate that the better.

[waza]

Naturally a forlorn hope to get an answer from a certain group of posters which doesn't involve looking back!

Give me some IMPARTIAL reading matter which details where the Constitution IS harming Thailand NOW. I assume you understand NOW, post 2011, up to TODAY.

As it is, I think we're going to have to agree to disagree

Question1 not answered - nice try, trying to fob me off, but all you have given is the usual reply about how it came about. Not the affects it is having which is holding Thailand back.

Your 'they did it first so we can do it' is the pathetic childish attitude of a particular group of posters.

My points are valid, your obsession with disappearing back to the past shows a complete lack of grasping facts.

Is the 2007 Constitution THE THAI CONSTITUTION or not? Presumably not according to you. I imagine your view is contradicted by all the available facts.

Thailand is being governed in accordance with the Constitution, brought about in 2007.

And what is wrong with my believing that a NEW Constitution should be for the benefit of Thailand?

The ruling party are NOT Thailand - if you forget that, any opinions you have are seriously flawed.

Once again you dive back to the past to bring the Democrats into it. Usual diversionary tactic. Seen it too many times from certain posters. Usually means they can't answer the question.

I don't condone what the Democrats may have done, but adopting the same allegedly 'bad' tactics doesn't seem beneficial.

Try to reply without going back to the playground, or not. Thailand's FUTURE is at stake. The sooner you appreciate that the better.

question 1 - yes - answered. In a different thread, but only yesterday.

http://www.thaivisa....25#entry5523327

You seem a bit testy tonight. CAPS are not really needed to make a point with me, and I have made an honest effort to respond to your questions. I have provided answers to your questions, provided information and asked you questions. In return you start with putting words in my mouth, insults, and ignore the questions.

It seems to me that the ability to keep up a newbie persona with a new alias wears off after some time.

The rest of the post above is just a rant on your part and I have no desire to participate in that.

Adios, whoever you are.

I'm me

What are you accusing me of - "a newbie persona with a new alias"? I would like the Moderators to investigate if in fact I am in contravention of the rules?

I am a 'newbie', rapidly becoming an 'oldbie', suffering the same fate as many posters.

I accept your throwing in the towel, despite your personal attack on me.

I ask 2 simple questions, and get 2 diversionary answers. Never mind, that's life.

Time for a nice rest - cocoa I think - cheers

You will get used to ignoring Tom, he a legend in his own lunchtime.

[Thai at Heart]

They didn't have the legal right to intervene, but a few spurious complaints got them in the game.

They shouldn't have got involved. I look forward to them directly answering every request from somchai from yasothon as well as they answered Boonrat from bangkok.

They have made their bed deal with it.

[rubl]

It's interesting to see that the question "why a complete rewrite" is not answered yet. Only some zigzagging, coming with irrelevant issues. Using one's thoughts as base to conclude something.

Well, let me answer my own question. The current constitution based on the 2007 version with minor amendments since, seems a good starting point for further 'juridical clarifications'. I see no reason to rewrite the current constitution just for the fun of it, and till now no-one has given a good reason or reasons for a rewrite either. Let me tell you I do not see "yes, but the coupmakers ..." as sufficient reason.

To have a Pheu Thai lawyer say 'cut court out of charter rewrite' sound like "we can't be bothered by all that and various French and English TV posters agree with this'.

[Thai at Heart]

It's interesting to see that the question "why a complete rewrite" is not answered yet. Only some zigzagging, coming with irrelevant issues. Using one's thoughts as base to conclude something.

Well, let me answer my own question. The current constitution based on the 2007 version with minor amendments since, seems a good starting point for further 'juridical clarifications'. I see no reason to rewrite the current constitution just for the fun of it, and till now no-one has given a good reason or reasons for a rewrite either. Let me tell you I do not see "yes, but the coupmakers ..." as sufficient reason.

To have a Pheu Thai lawyer say 'cut court out of charter rewrite' sound like "we can't be bothered by all that and various French and English TV posters agree with this'.

Well it just depends if you bring a big enough portion of the army with you as to whether a compete rewrite is legal or not.

[phiphidon]

I'm me

What are you accusing me of - "a newbie persona with a new alias"? I would like the Moderators to investigate if in fact I am in contravention of the rules?

I am a 'newbie', rapidly becoming an 'oldbie', suffering the same fate as many posters.

I accept your throwing in the towel, despite your personal attack on me.

I ask 2 simple questions, and get 2 diversionary answers. Never mind, that's life.

Time for a nice rest - cocoa I think - cheers

I am me - you are posting anonymously on an internet forum. Again, whoever you are, and however many aliases you may or may not have.

You've been given straight answers and chose to ignore them. Not my problem, but I chose not to waste more time with a poster who is not interested in discussing.

sounds like someone talking to me to say they're not talking to me

fair enough

byee

There you go noistar, I am sure this is what you wanted to hear, hope you're happy now.

It's interesting to see that the question "why a complete rewrite" is not answered yet. Only some zigzagging, coming with irrelevant issues. Using one's thoughts as base to conclude something.

Well, let me answer my own question. The current constitution based on the 2007 version with minor amendments since, seems a good starting point for further 'juridical clarifications'. I see no reason to rewrite the current constitution just for the fun of it, and till now no-one has given a good reason or reasons for a rewrite either. Let me tell you I do not see "yes, but the coupmakers ..." as sufficient reason.

To have a Pheu Thai lawyer say 'cut court out of charter rewrite' sound like "we can't be bothered by all that and various French and English TV posters agree with this'.

[rubl]

It's interesting to see that the question "why a complete rewrite" is not answered yet. Only some zigzagging, coming with irrelevant issues. Using one's thoughts as base to conclude something.

Well, let me answer my own question. The current constitution based on the 2007 version with minor amendments since, seems a good starting point for further 'juridical clarifications'. I see no reason to rewrite the current constitution just for the fun of it, and till now no-one has given a good reason or reasons for a rewrite either. Let me tell you I do not see "yes, but the coupmakers ..." as sufficient reason.

To have a Pheu Thai lawyer say 'cut court out of charter rewrite' sound like "we can't be bothered by all that and various French and English TV posters agree with this'.

Well it just depends if you bring a big enough portion of the army with you as to whether a compete rewrite is legal or not.

Thank you for your contribution. Unfortunately that's an answer to a question not asked. The question still is "why a complete rewrite?"

[Thai at Heart]

It's interesting to see that the question "why a complete rewrite" is not answered yet. Only some zigzagging, coming with irrelevant issues. Using one's thoughts as base to conclude something.

Well, let me answer my own question. The current constitution based on the 2007 version with minor amendments since, seems a good starting point for further 'juridical clarifications'. I see no reason to rewrite the current constitution just for the fun of it, and till now no-one has given a good reason or reasons for a rewrite either. Let me tell you I do not see "yes, but the coupmakers ..." as sufficient reason.

To have a Pheu Thai lawyer say 'cut court out of charter rewrite' sound like "we can't be bothered by all that and various French and English TV posters agree with this'.

Well it just depends if you bring a big enough portion of the army with you as to whether a compete rewrite is legal or not.

Thank you for your contribution. Unfortunately that's an answer to a question not asked. The question still is "why a complete rewrite?"

That is the 64 million dollar question. I am not even informed as to why they have to make a complete rewrite to pardon potentially politically motivated judgments from courts obviously appointed by a government formed by a coup?

I am not an arguementatist, but if you cab completely rewrite a constitution a after a military intervention, why can't you rewrite one without?

[phiphidon]

It's interesting to see that the question "why a complete rewrite" is not answered yet. Only some zigzagging, coming with irrelevant issues. Using one's thoughts as base to conclude something.

Well, let me answer my own question. The current constitution based on the 2007 version with minor amendments since, seems a good starting point for further 'juridical clarifications'. I see no reason to rewrite the current constitution just for the fun of it, and till now no-one has given a good reason or reasons for a rewrite either. Let me tell you I do not see "yes, but the coupmakers ..." as sufficient reason.

To have a Pheu Thai lawyer say 'cut court out of charter rewrite' sound like "we can't be bothered by all that and various French and English TV posters agree with this'.

Well it just depends if you bring a big enough portion of the army with you as to whether a compete rewrite is legal or not.

Thank you for your contribution. Unfortunately that's an answer to a question not asked. The question still is "why a complete rewrite?"

That is the 64 million dollar question. I am not even informed as to why they have to make a complete rewrite to pardon potentially politically motivated judgments from courts obviously appointed by a government formed by a coup?

I am not an arguementatist, but if you cab completely rewrite a constitution a after a military intervention, why can't you rewrite one without?

And if you can rewrite a constitution in 2007 without having had a referendum beforehand why do need to hold a referendum before writing a constitution in 2012? And if you had to go through the AG when raising a complaint citing Section 63 in 1996 why do you not have to go through the AG when raising a complaint citing Section 68 (same as old Section 63) in 2012?

Welcome to the wacky world of the Constitution Court.

As my old Pappy used to say to me when we was sitting on the porch

"Never", he said, "Never", he said once again fo' emphasis or summit like that, and then once more,

"Never, bring an Army to a Charter Rewrite"

Fine man, my Pappy................

[Thai at Heart]

To complicated to edit the quotes.

To ppdon

TIT

They will find a middle ground eventually, our the whole place descends to chaos.

My vote goes with the middle ground. Thaksin comes back, no jail, the army keeps their cash flowing

Edited July 28, 2012 by Thai at Heart

[lungmi]

Pheu Thai legal adviser Chusak Sirinil said yesterday the ruling party should first amend Article 68 of the charter, seen as giving the top court the power to meddle in any rewrite. Once this provision was amended, the coalition could proceed to frame a new charter, the adviser said.

"Pheu Thai will strive for the rewriting of the entire charter," Chusak said.

With that one statement of intent, it is enough for another wave of Dem complaints to go back to the Constitutional Court to use as proof that PTP do indeed wish to rewrite the entire charter which was against the decision of the court. When will these idiots learn that if you want to do something then keep your bloody mouth shut. They are all after their 15 mins.

Thailand hub of Ineptocracies!

When the CC come up with a definite order of what to do no doubt politicians will follow it. When you specifically make ineffectual remarks in the judgement like the government "should" rather than "must" what do they expect. They are either a remarkably stupid and naive bunch of judges or they know exactly what they have done and are aiming at damage limitation.

Borderline mentality. "Should" means the way is open for democratic discussion of all concerned parts. The CC is free to supervise the results. It's the same what happens actually in Germany concerning the Election Law.

[Thai at Heart]

If you really want to stop the entire Thai legal system, get them to quantify "should". It is equivalent to PI.

We said it, we will judge

[Thaddeus]

It's interesting to see that the question "why a complete rewrite" is not answered yet. Only some zigzagging, coming with irrelevant issues. Using one's thoughts as base to conclude something.

Well, let me answer my own question. The current constitution based on the 2007 version with minor amendments since, seems a good starting point for further 'juridical clarifications'. I see no reason to rewrite the current constitution just for the fun of it, and till now no-one has given a good reason or reasons for a rewrite either. Let me tell you I do not see "yes, but the coupmakers ..." as sufficient reason.

To have a Pheu Thai lawyer say 'cut court out of charter rewrite' sound like "we can't be bothered by all that and various French and English TV posters agree with this'.

Well it just depends if you bring a big enough portion of the army with you as to whether a compete rewrite is legal or not.

Thank you for your contribution. Unfortunately that's an answer to a question not asked. The question still is "why a complete rewrite?"

That is the 64 million dollar question. I am not even informed as to why they have to make a complete rewrite to pardon potentially politically motivated judgments from courts obviously appointed by a government formed by a coup?

I am not an arguementatist, but if you cab completely rewrite a constitution a after a military intervention, why can't you rewrite one without?

Because the last one wasn't a complete rewrite, it had amendments, nothing more, and that is what the CC are saying, amendments ok, rewrite not ok..... which PTP then challenged by saying they wan't to amend the one article that stops a complete rewrite.

You don't have to watch the crash to predict a train wreck is about to happen.

[Thaddeus]

Fine man, my Pappy................

Some qualities can skip a generation.

[Thai at Heart]

To thaddeus,

There were huge provisos and that referendum, that really didn't make it much better than blindly claiming ptp never bought a vote.

[Thaddeus]

To thaddeus,

There were huge provisos and that referendum, that really didn't make it much better than blindly claiming ptp never bought a vote.

Never said that there weren't.

[hellodolly]

For 80 years the Thais have struggled to get good governance in place. The constitution is an organic set of rules that has developed for good reasons.

For longer they have worked on the judicial system and whilst it may not be perfect, it has and continues to evolve.

Now this band of brigands feels that it has both the mandate and the authority to tear everything up and replace it with its own set?

God give me strength

Well in defense of him I have to admit a dictator dosen't need them.

[waza]

"And if you can rewrite a constitution in 2007 without having had a referendum beforehand why do need to hold a referendum before writing a constitution in 2012? And if you had to go through the AG when raising a complaint citing Section 63 in 1996 why do you not have to go through the AG when raising a complaint citing Section 68 (same as old Section 63) in 2012?" Phiphuidon

Although the 2007 constitution is essentially the 1997 one, with an escape clause for the coup leaders and beefed up judicial controls it was ratified by the masses unlike any previous constitution. That is why PhiPhidon, but you already knew this, you just wanted to rattle the cage a bit. As your ol pappy said,

PS:While it is never advisable to use the word "never" when it comes to English grammar rules, many grammarians still considered it unacceptable to start a sentence with and, but or because. In their opinion, doing so creates a sentence fragment, not a complete sentence. "And," "but" and "because" are used primarily to join two independent phrases together and create a relationship between them.

http://www.wisegeek....-or-because.htm

Edited July 28, 2012 by waza

[rubl]

It's interesting to see that the question "why a complete rewrite" is not answered yet. Only some zigzagging, coming with irrelevant issues. Using one's thoughts as base to conclude something.

Well, let me answer my own question. The current constitution based on the 2007 version with minor amendments since, seems a good starting point for further 'juridical clarifications'. I see no reason to rewrite the current constitution just for the fun of it, and till now no-one has given a good reason or reasons for a rewrite either. Let me tell you I do not see "yes, but the coupmakers ..." as sufficient reason.

To have a Pheu Thai lawyer say 'cut court out of charter rewrite' sound like "we can't be bothered by all that and various French and English TV posters agree with this'.

Well it just depends if you bring a big enough portion of the army with you as to whether a compete rewrite is legal or not.

Thank you for your contribution. Unfortunately that's an answer to a question not asked. The question still is "why a complete rewrite?"

That is the 64 million dollar question. I am not even informed as to why they have to make a complete rewrite to pardon potentially politically motivated judgments from courts obviously appointed by a government formed by a coup?

I am not an arguementatist, but if you cab completely rewrite a constitution a after a military intervention, why can't you rewrite one without?

Once more, thank you for your contribution, but unfortunately again an answer to a question not asked.

Let me try again and be more specific, maybe that helps, although I tried before and it didn't.

"why a complete rewrite of the current constitution", as in what's contentious in it's content.

[rubl]

Thank you for your contribution. Unfortunately that's an answer to a question not asked. The question still is "why a complete rewrite?"

That is the 64 million dollar question. I am not even informed as to why they have to make a complete rewrite to pardon potentially politically motivated judgments from courts obviously appointed by a government formed by a coup?

I am not an arguementatist, but if you cab completely rewrite a constitution a after a military intervention, why can't you rewrite one without?

And if you can rewrite a constitution in 2007 without having had a referendum beforehand why do need to hold a referendum before writing a constitution in 2012? And if you had to go through the AG when raising a complaint citing Section 63 in 1996 why do you not have to go through the AG when raising a complaint citing Section 68 (same as old Section 63) in 2012?

Welcome to the wacky world of the Constitution Court.

As my old Pappy used to say to me when we was sitting on the porch

"Never", he said, "Never", he said once again fo' emphasis or summit like that, and then once more,

"Never, bring an Army to a Charter Rewrite"

Fine man, my Pappy................

Still, no arguments which point to the contents of the current constitution to justify a complete rewrite.

As for your pappy, I hope he's still alive and enjoying old age. Mine will be 85 late August and still enjoys life. Three years ago he made his first flight and a trip to Thailand to see how things are here. He wasn't really impressed by all, but liked the nice climate and seeing his oldest son again who is really remiss in not visiting his old father, notr his mother in many a year. My excuses for that, dear and beloved parents

[Noistar]

Thank you for your contribution. Unfortunately that's an answer to a question not asked. The question still is "why a complete rewrite?"

That is the 64 million dollar question. I am not even informed as to why they have to make a complete rewrite to pardon potentially politically motivated judgments from courts obviously appointed by a government formed by a coup?

I am not an arguementatist, but if you cab completely rewrite a constitution a after a military intervention, why can't you rewrite one without?

And if you can rewrite a constitution in 2007 without having had a referendum beforehand why do need to hold a referendum before writing a constitution in 2012? And if you had to go through the AG when raising a complaint citing Section 63 in 1996 why do you not have to go through the AG when raising a complaint citing Section 68 (same as old Section 63) in 2012?

Welcome to the wacky world of the Constitution Court.

As my old Pappy used to say to me when we was sitting on the porch

"Never", he said, "Never", he said once again fo' emphasis or summit like that, and then once more,

"Never, bring an Army to a Charter Rewrite"

Fine man, my Pappy................

Still, no arguments which point to the contents of the current constitution to justify a complete rewrite.

As for your pappy, I hope he's still alive and enjoying old age. Mine will be 85 late August and still enjoys life. Three years ago he made his first flight and a trip to Thailand to see how things are here. He wasn't really impressed by all, but liked the nice climate and seeing his oldest son again who is really remiss in not visiting his old father, notr his mother in many a year. My excuses for that, dear and beloved parents

You're a better man than me if you can get an answer to the question you're asking.

Ive given up out of respect for the posters who deserve more than the same round and round.

I believe that's why it's done. Hopefully the people watching it happen realise what they're seeing.

Good luck

[Noistar]

Pheu Thai legal adviser Chusak Sirinil said yesterday the ruling party should first amend Article 68 of the charter, seen as giving the top court the power to meddle in any rewrite. Once this provision was amended, the coalition could proceed to frame a new charter, the adviser said.

"Pheu Thai will strive for the rewriting of the entire charter," Chusak said.

With that one statement of intent, it is enough for another wave of Dem complaints to go back to the Constitutional Court to use as proof that PTP do indeed wish to rewrite the entire charter which was against the decision of the court. When will these idiots learn that if you want to do something then keep your bloody mouth shut. They are all after their 15 mins.

Thailand hub of Ineptocracies!

When the CC come up with a definite order of what to do no doubt politicians will follow it. When you specifically make ineffectual remarks in the judgement like the government "should" rather than "must" what do they expect. They are either a remarkably stupid and naive bunch of judges or they know exactly what they have done and are aiming at damage limitation.

Borderline mentality. "Should" means the way is open for democratic discussion of all concerned parts. The CC is free to supervise the results. It's the same what happens actually in Germany concerning the Election Law.

Hi from the oldie newbie - still noistar you'll see

I'm interested in the 'democratic discussion'. Bearing in mind the Constitution is being changed in the name of Democracy, will there actually be effective parliamentary discussion?

I'm sure 'the army' will feature in some replies, except for people who have stated publicly they are not talking to me.

Um - time for brekki

Can't find the wai emoticon on safari! So 'wai'

[phiphidon]

Fine man, my Pappy................

Some qualities can skip a generation.

Ah, nice, the stalker has some fans, presumably people who don't agree with me. Let me see, skywalker69 the smiley king, foodlover - who? and noistar, open minded to the end. Thanks for the character assessments.

[Reasonableman]

If you were to make even some meagre attempts at objectivity and were not so apparently agenda-driven, perhaps the assessment would be better

A 3000-post one-sided monolog hardly inspires confidence in your balanced analytical and observational skills and impartiality, now does it?

[phiphidon]

That is the 64 million dollar question. I am not even informed as to why they have to make a complete rewrite to pardon potentially politically motivated judgments from courts obviously appointed by a government formed by a coup?

I am not an arguementatist, but if you cab completely rewrite a constitution a after a military intervention, why can't you rewrite one without?

Because the last one wasn't a complete rewrite, it had amendments, nothing more, and that is what the CC are saying, amendments ok, rewrite not ok..... which PTP then challenged by saying they wan't to amend the one article that stops a complete rewrite.

You don't have to watch the crash to predict a train wreck is about to happen.

What part of this extract from the 2006 Interim Constitution do you not understand - Is it "the annulement"? Synonyms include abolishment, abrogation, invalidation, dissolution, cancellation. In the words of Monty Python, the 1996 Constitution ceased to be, it was a dead Constitution, replaced in its entirety by the Interim 2006 Constitution.

The 2007 constitution was a complete rewrite of a new constitution through a CDA. In parts it may be based on the the previous constitution but in the legal sense it is a new constitution, new Sections, new text new everything - it is not the 1996 constitution amended in parts.

CONSTITUTION OF THE KINGDOM OF THAILAND

(INTERIM),

B.E. 2549 (2006)

SOMDET PHRA PARAMINTHARAMAHA

BHUMIBOL ADULYADEJ

SAYAMMINTHARATHIRAT BOROMMANATTHABOPHIT

Given on the 1"' Day of October B.E. 2549;

Whereas the Chairperson of the Council for Democratic Reform successfully seized control over the administration of

the State on 19Ih September B.E. 2549 (2006) and respectfully informed the King that the grounds for seizure and the

annulment of the Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand represented a desire to ameliorate the deterioration of public

faith in the administration of State affairs and the inefficient supervision of State administration ...........................