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

[Buchholz]

and the first thing they did when writing the 2007 Constitution was take 85% of the 1997 Constitution and write it as the 2007 Constitution.

[Thai at Heart]

and the first thing they did when writing the 2007 Constitution was take 85% of the 1997 Constitution and write it as the 2007 Constitution.

plagiarists

[Noistar]

and the first thing they did when writing the 2007 Constitution was take 85% of the 1997 Constitution and write it as the 2007 Constitution.

I hope that's true, because it might finally answer the question I've been asking.

[Buchholz]

and the first thing they did when writing the 2007 Constitution was take 85% of the 1997 Constitution and write it as the 2007 Constitution.

I hope that's true, because it might finally answer the question I've been asking.

A simple comparative reading between the two shows the reality.

.

[Noistar]

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 ...........................

Sounds like we're (as in you and me) getting on track.

I understand what you mean by a complete re-write. It was different to my interpretation.

I'm not being sarcastic when I offer my version of 're-write' was a totally new content.

If I'm right, your version concerns what they did with the content, whatever its origins.

Still leaves me wondering what the Constitution will look like after the ruling party have re-written it.

Nobody (i assume!) knows at the moment.

I hope you will let me repeat my opinion that a new Constitution must be for the benefit of Thailand.

[phiphidon]

and the first thing they did when writing the 2007 Constitution was take 85% of the 1997 Constitution and write it as the 2007 Constitution.

Well it's pretty obvious that they would but you are (deliberately?) missing my point. The old constitution was in a legal sense annulled. It no longer existed.

In order to write a new one (obviously incorporating input from the 97 version) they had to follow a mechanism to write it. This was covered by the formation of a CDC (later become CDA) under Sections 25 -32 of the Interim.

Once the new 2007 constitution had been approved by the King the rules for forming a CDA to change the Constitution came under Section 291, the section the PTP were attempting to change to allow the formation of a CDA etc when the CC stuck its foot in...............

[phiphidon]

Sounds like we're (as in you and me) getting on track.

I understand what you mean by a complete re-write. It was different to my interpretation.

I'm not being sarcastic when I offer my version of 're-write' was a totally new content.

If I'm right, your version concerns what they did with the content, whatever its origins.

Still leaves me wondering what the Constitution will look like after the ruling party have re-written it.

Nobody (i assume!) knows at the moment.

I hope you will let me repeat my opinion that a new Constitution must be for the benefit of Thailand.

Hooray, we got there.

"Still leaves me wondering what the Constitution will look like after the ruling party have re-written it.

Nobody (i assume!) knows at the moment.

I hope you will let me repeat my opinion that a new Constitution must be for the benefit of Thailand."

Well this is what I meant when I said that Dems, yellowshirts and Dr Tuls nationalist nutters had done nobody any favours by getting the CC unnecessarily involved.

The CCs "judgement" has effectively canned the possibility of civilian input into a CDA written constitution and probably just left the in parliament section by section amenment as a viable "solution"

Edited July 29, 2012 by phiphidon

[Reasonableman]

Is the Constitution Court not considered a Thai court of law here on TV? I'm surprised that people feel at liberty to treat the court's judgment with apparent disdain. Could that be interpreted as contempt of court and a violation of forum rules? Just asking.

[phiphidon]

Is the Constitution Court not considered a Thai court of law here on TV? I'm surprised that people feel at liberty to treat the court's judgment with apparent disdain. Could that be interpreted as contempt of court and a violation of forum rules? Just asking.

Go troll elsewhere, isn't bleating to the mods, even if not against forum rules, just morally repugnant?

Edited July 29, 2012 by phiphidon

[tlansford]

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?

it is quite rich for someone like yourself to tell others to be objective.

Everyone falls somewhere on the political spectrum.

Tomorrow morning, turn and face north. Stretch out your arms. The average TVF poster is to the right of the rising sun.

Some of us are not and people like yourselves tell us to "be objective"...

Sweet...

[Reasonableman]

Is the Constitution Court not considered a Thai court of law here on TV? I'm surprised that people feel at liberty to treat the court's judgment with apparent disdain. Could that be interpreted as contempt of court and a violation of forum rules? Just asking.

Go troll elsewhere.

Is that your considered legal opinion?

[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?

it is quite rich for someone like yourself to tell others to be objective.

Everyone falls somewhere on the political spectrum.

Tomorrow morning, turn and face north. Stretch out your arms. The average TVF poster is to the right of the rising sun.

Some of us are not and people like yourselves tell us to "be objective"...

Sweet...

Nice to see great teamwork, and glad you agree. Many actually don't have an entrenched "position", and do make some effort to be objective. Others do not. Your generalization does disservice to the complexity of the membership mix. It might be summarized as dumb red-yellow thinking. In that case, an honest attempt at objectivity and balance may be a novel idea for you both.

[tlansford]

and the first thing they did when writing the 2007 Constitution was take 85% of the 1997 Constitution and write it as the 2007 Constitution.

Well it's pretty obvious that they would but you are (deliberately?) missing my point. The old constitution was in a legal sense annulled. It no longer existed.

In order to write a new one (obviously incorporating input from the 97 version) they had to follow a mechanism to write it. This was covered by the formation of a CDC (later become CDA) under Sections 25 -32 of the Interim.

Once the new 2007 constitution had been approved by the King the rules for forming a CDA to change the Constitution came under Section 291, the section the PTP were attempting to change to allow the formation of a CDA etc when the CC stuck its foot in...............

Now readers have the information regarding the annulment of the constitution and how it was reformed. They have the information regarding the conditions under which the CDA was created and under which the referendum was conducted. They have the historical events and conditions surrounding those events. They have links to information (in addition to wiki) comparing the previous and the current constitutions.

I suspect that little of this information will be absorbed by some posters and the content and tenor of the posting is likely to remain the same.

I have my own opinions about some things that could be changed and some that should remain. Some are from the previous constitution and some from the current constitution (eg: term limits is IMO a good idea and introduced by the Junta constitution). I am certain that there are many parts of the constitution that Thais might want to change which I know nothing about. The potential complexity of making several, reasonable changes, coordinated changes, as it were, could be difficult to do amendment by amendment. IMO that is the one reason (a practical reason) why a CDA makes sense.

For all practical purposes, the CDA is off the table unless something unusual like the proposal in this OP occurs. That could make this process longer and more complicated.

IMO, the PTP will push through with some changes and most likely via parliament and amendments. The only reason that I think this is a shame is because a CDA would have had the potential to merge several perspectives into a single proposed charter and (possibly) could have created a more balanced result.

IMO, an improved charter would keep the term limits, make the senate 100% elected, and the judiciary selection done through a combined route of the executive and legislative branches with terms of office which are not synchronous with the terms of the legislatures and the PM (eg, longer, ....)

[phiphidon]

Nice to see great teamwork, and glad you agree. Many actually don't have an entrenched "position", and do make some effort to be objective. Others do not. Your generalization does disservice to the complexity of the membership mix. It might be summarized as dumb red-yellow thinking. In that case, an honest attempt at objectivity and balance may be a novel idea for you both.

So if you have nothing to add to the "cut court out of charter rewrite thread" can us unbalanced individuals carry on?

Edited July 29, 2012 by phiphidon

[tlansford]

Nice to see great teamwork, and glad you agree. Many actually don't have an entrenched "position", and do make some effort to be objective. Others do not. Your generalization does disservice to the complexity of the membership mix. It might be summarized as dumb red-yellow thinking. In that case, an honest attempt at objectivity and balance may be a novel idea for you both.

So if you have nothing to add to the "cut court out of charter rewrite thread" can us unbalanced individuals carry on?

"can us unbalanced individuals carry on?"

permission not requested, permission not required... Carry on !

[Buchholz]

and the first thing they did when writing the 2007 Constitution was take 85% of the 1997 Constitution and write it as the 2007 Constitution.

Well it's pretty obvious that they would but you are (deliberately?) missing my point. The old constitution was in a legal sense annulled. It no longer existed.

In order to write a new one (obviously incorporating input from the 97 version) they had to follow a mechanism to write it. This was covered by the formation of a CDC (later become CDA) under Sections 25 -32 of the Interim.

Once the new 2007 constitution had been approved by the King the rules for forming a CDA to change the Constitution came under Section 291, the section the PTP were attempting to change to allow the formation of a CDA etc when the CC stuck its foot in...............

Why is that "pretty obvious they would" and "obviously incorporating input"?

The CDA was under no obligation to copy even a single article. It could have just as been 0% of the 1997 Constitution that was used.

But that's not what they decided to do. They decided to use the vast majority of every article completely unchanged.

.

[Reasonableman]

Nice to see great teamwork, and glad you agree. Many actually don't have an entrenched "position", and do make some effort to be objective. Others do not. Your generalization does disservice to the complexity of the membership mix. It might be summarized as dumb red-yellow thinking. In that case, an honest attempt at objectivity and balance may be a novel idea for you both.

So if you have nothing to add to the "cut court out of charter rewrite thread" can us unbalanced individuals carry on?

It would be really nice if you had a comment on the "contempt of court" issue, just for the record.

[phiphidon]

and the first thing they did when writing the 2007 Constitution was take 85% of the 1997 Constitution and write it as the 2007 Constitution.

Well it's pretty obvious that they would but you are (deliberately?) missing my point. The old constitution was in a legal sense annulled. It no longer existed.

In order to write a new one (obviously incorporating input from the 97 version) they had to follow a mechanism to write it. This was covered by the formation of a CDC (later become CDA) under Sections 25 -32 of the Interim.

Once the new 2007 constitution had been approved by the King the rules for forming a CDA to change the Constitution came under Section 291, the section the PTP were attempting to change to allow the formation of a CDA etc when the CC stuck its foot in...............

Now readers have the information regarding the annulment of the constitution and how it was reformed. They have the information regarding the conditions under which the CDA was created and under which the referendum was conducted. They have the historical events and conditions surrounding those events. They have links to information (in addition to wiki) comparing the previous and the current constitutions.

I suspect that little of this information will be absorbed by some posters and the content and tenor of the posting is likely to remain the same.

I have my own opinions about some things that could be changed and some that should remain. Some are from the previous constitution and some from the current constitution (eg: term limits is IMO a good idea and introduced by the Junta constitution). I am certain that there are many parts of the constitution that Thais might want to change which I know nothing about. The potential complexity of making several, reasonable changes, coordinated changes, as it were, could be difficult to do amendment by amendment. IMO that is the one reason (a practical reason) why a CDA makes sense.

For all practical purposes, the CDA is off the table unless something unusual like the proposal in this OP occurs. That could make this process longer and more complicated.

IMO, the PTP will push through with some changes and most likely via parliament and amendments. The only reason that I think this is a shame is because a CDA would have had the potential to merge several perspectives into a single proposed charter and (possibly) could have created a more balanced result.

IMO, an improved charter would keep the term limits, make the senate 100% elected, and the judiciary selection done through a combined route of the executive and legislative branches with terms of office which are not synchronous with the terms of the legislatures and the PM (eg, longer, ....)

Another problem I see with the in-parliament amendment by amendment route is at the first sign of any amendment being made (it won't matter which one) the usual suspects will be out brandishing Section 68. This may work a few times but I think the CC would soon wise up (one would hope). Which offers up the obvious target for the first amendment (No, not that one), this one, Section 68 and reverting it back to the AG being a check and balance against frivolous use.

Now if only they had thought of that a few weeks ago before this all started...............

[Buchholz]

For all practical purposes, the CDA is off the table unless something unusual like the proposal in this OP occurs.

of course it's off the table, that's what Thaksin announced a week or so ago. He wants to go for individual section amendments, so that's what the Pheu Thai Party will pursue.

Thaksin thinks, Pheu Thai acts remains unchanged.

[Reasonableman]

Nice to see great teamwork, and glad you agree. Many actually don't have an entrenched "position", and do make some effort to be objective. Others do not. Your generalization does disservice to the complexity of the membership mix. It might be summarized as dumb red-yellow thinking. In that case, an honest attempt at objectivity and balance may be a novel idea for you both.

So if you have nothing to add to the "cut court out of charter rewrite thread" can us unbalanced individuals carry on?

It would be really nice if you had a comment on the "contempt of court" issue, just for the record.

Frivolous? The Constitution Court? Oh dear... Just as well you are safely out of the country.

[phiphidon]

and the first thing they did when writing the 2007 Constitution was take 85% of the 1997 Constitution and write it as the 2007 Constitution.

Well it's pretty obvious that they would but you are (deliberately?) missing my point. The old constitution was in a legal sense annulled. It no longer existed.

In order to write a new one (obviously incorporating input from the 97 version) they had to follow a mechanism to write it. This was covered by the formation of a CDC (later become CDA) under Sections 25 -32 of the Interim.

Once the new 2007 constitution had been approved by the King the rules for forming a CDA to change the Constitution came under Section 291, the section the PTP were attempting to change to allow the formation of a CDA etc when the CC stuck its foot in...............

Why is that "pretty obvious they would" and "obviously incorporating input"?

The CDA was under no obligation to copy even a single article. It could have just as been 0% of the 1997 Constitution that was used.

But that's not what they decided to do. They decided to use the vast majority of every article completely unchanged.

.

OK, I'll agree with you but that won't deflect from the fact that the PTP were only going to follow the procedure of the Junta when they formed a CDA to write the constitution. But the CC are implying that this is not possible by amending Section 291.

Now I know you were deliberately missing my point, Spin away. Wouldn't do for me to be right would it............

[phiphidon]

For all practical purposes, the CDA is off the table unless something unusual like the proposal in this OP occurs.

of course it's off the table, that's what Thaksin announced a week or so ago. He wants to go for individual section amendments, so that's what the Pheu Thai Party will pursue.

Thaksin thinks, Pheu Thai acts remains unchanged.

I suspect it's more than likely due to the ambiguity of the final verdict providing an either / or situation - which version will be quicker / cheaper. That will be down to any further mob action I feel as well as a real ruling on whether a referendum is required before a CDA is formed.

[tlansford]

For all practical purposes, the CDA is off the table unless something unusual like the proposal in this OP occurs.

of course it's off the table, that's what Thaksin announced a week or so ago. He wants to go for individual section amendments, so that's what the Pheu Thai Party will pursue.

Thaksin thinks, Pheu Thai acts remains unchanged.

I suspect it's more than likely due to the ambiguity of the final verdict providing an either / or situation - which version will be quicker / cheaper. That will be down to any further mob action I feel as well as a real ruling on whether a referendum is required before a CDA is formed.

off the table due to Thaksin?

off the table due to the ruling of the CC.

But that was obvious in my post.

[Buchholz]

and the first thing they did when writing the 2007 Constitution was take 85% of the 1997 Constitution and write it as the 2007 Constitution.

Well it's pretty obvious that they would but you are (deliberately?) missing my point. The old constitution was in a legal sense annulled. It no longer existed.

In order to write a new one (obviously incorporating input from the 97 version) they had to follow a mechanism to write it. This was covered by the formation of a CDC (later become CDA) under Sections 25 -32 of the Interim.

Once the new 2007 constitution had been approved by the King the rules for forming a CDA to change the Constitution came under Section 291, the section the PTP were attempting to change to allow the formation of a CDA etc when the CC stuck its foot in...............

Why is that "pretty obvious they would" and "obviously incorporating input"?

The CDA was under no obligation to copy even a single article. It could have just as been 0% of the 1997 Constitution that was used.

But that's not what they decided to do. They decided to use the vast majority of every article completely unchanged.

.

OK, I'll agree with you but that won't deflect from the fact that the PTP were only going to follow the procedure of the Junta when they formed a CDA to write the constitution. But the CC are implying that this is not possible by amending Section 291.

well, as said, most of this talk of CDA is moot anyway. The PTP is already moved away from that in favor of Thaksin/Chalerm individual amendments.

As for whatever other point you were making, my only "spin" was to mention the reality that there's not all that much dissimilar from the 2 constitutions. Something someone not familiar might not know after your description that it was ripped up and completely re-written section by section or whatever other hysterical phrase you used. In fact, they are nearly identical.

Still, at the end of the day, this thread's not really worth pursuing as it's not happening. But you guys go ahead and discuss as it might useful some day in the future when a CDA is actually formed.

.

.

[rubl]

The fact that the old constitution was replaced completely by a new constitution reflects legal niceties, but not necessarily it's contents. Dear member phiphidon even mentioned that new article 68 = old article 63.

So to clarify and make things easier, my question refers to what may be wrong with the contents of the current constitution which may be 85% or more based on the 1997 constitution, but with juridical clarifications and the junta amnesty and senate selection method, to justify a complete rewrite?

[tlansford]

The fact that the old constitution was replaced completely by a new constitution reflects legal niceties, but not necessarily it's contents. Dear member phiphidon even mentioned that new article 68 = old article 63.

So to clarify and make things easier, my question refers to what may be wrong with the contents of the current constitution which may be 85% or more based on the 1997 constitution, but with juridical clarifications and the junta amnesty and senate selection method, to justify a complete rewrite?

Rubl, I think if you look here http://www.thailawforum.com/articles/Thailand-Eighteeth-Consititution.html that you will see that it was not just judicial clarifications, junta amnesty, and senate selection which where changed.

As for it being 85% or more based on the old charter, I do not know - not that I have seen anyone do a count. Maybe it is 85% or less based on the old charter. Or maybe is is 15% or more based on the old charter. You see the futility of the numbers argument when considering the fundamental law of the land? IMO it is an irrelevant argument. The actual changes are relevant.

And it has been mentioned before, the CDA is not meant for a "complete re-write" per se, but as a means of proposing a new charter in one shot where changes between dependent parts of the charter can be affected at one time. I would imagine that you can see how that would be practical for creating a single, coherent document.

[Noistar]

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?

it is quite rich for someone like yourself to tell others to be objective.

Everyone falls somewhere on the political spectrum.

Tomorrow morning, turn and face north. Stretch out your arms. The average TVF poster is to the right of the rising sun.

Some of us are not and people like yourselves tell us to "be objective"...

Sweet...

Nice to see great teamwork, and glad you agree. Many actually don't have an entrenched "position", and do make some effort to be objective. Others do not. Your generalization does disservice to the complexity of the membership mix. It might be summarized as dumb red-yellow thinking. In that case, an honest attempt at objectivity and balance may be a novel idea for you both.

I think I'll join Phiphidon and Tlansford (if he's talking to me yet). They admit they're in a minority on the forum (in the right of course), so i'd better make the numbers up.

Music to Phiphidon's ears, sending him to a dictionary to understand the meaning of 'objectivity' and 'balance'

[Noistar]

The fact that the old constitution was replaced completely by a new constitution reflects legal niceties, but not necessarily it's contents. Dear member phiphidon even mentioned that new article 68 = old article 63.

So to clarify and make things easier, my question refers to what may be wrong with the contents of the current constitution which may be 85% or more based on the 1997 constitution, but with juridical clarifications and the junta amnesty and senate selection method, to justify a complete rewrite?

Reminds me of John Nott (UK Defence Secretary) storming out of a TV interview because the interviewer wouldn't let him get away with not answering the question.

Can't imagine you'll (well I know you won't) get a straight answer.

How does it go - the army did it before so we can do it now

The ruling party have a majority so they can do what they want - dam_n the consequences to Thailand.

Edited July 29, 2012 by Noistar

[phiphidon]

The fact that the old constitution was replaced completely by a new constitution reflects legal niceties, but not necessarily it's contents. Dear member phiphidon even mentioned that new article 68 = old article 63.

So to clarify and make things easier, my question refers to what may be wrong with the contents of the current constitution which may be 85% or more based on the 1997 constitution, but with juridical clarifications and the junta amnesty and senate selection method, to justify a complete rewrite?

Well rubl if they went along for a "complete" "rewrite" ( but, here's the sneaky thing, not actually rewrite it but keep parts of the original) that requires a Constitution drafting assembly to be formed. Now the CDA members are not politicians but a public representative from every province in the country (76) plus another 23 "experts" be they lawyers, teachers, whatever to make up the 99 agreed in the 2nd reading of the bill. These 99 people, Thai people, not politicians, get to write the next constitution by holding meetings around the country to discuss the contents until approx 1 year later they come up with an interim constitution. This is then sent for referendum. If it passes, it passes if not, it goes back until they sort out the problem is..

The alternative is where politicians discuss and vote for individual sections in parliament. No referendum thats it.

And you know who to thank for the loss of the first choice, the more democratic choice, the one the dems, the PAD, Dr. Tul and the Nationalists and the CC made sure that the Thai citizens couldn't have...............................................

[Noistar]

The fact that the old constitution was replaced completely by a new constitution reflects legal niceties, but not necessarily it's contents. Dear member phiphidon even mentioned that new article 68 = old article 63.

So to clarify and make things easier, my question refers to what may be wrong with the contents of the current constitution which may be 85% or more based on the 1997 constitution, but with juridical clarifications and the junta amnesty and senate selection method, to justify a complete rewrite?

Well rubl if they went along for a "complete" "rewrite" ( but, here's the sneaky thing, not actually rewrite it but keep parts of the original) that requires a Constitution drafting assembly to be formed. Now the CDA members are not politicians but a public representative from every province in the country (76) plus another 23 "experts" be they lawyers, teachers, whatever to make up the 99 agreed in the 2nd reading of the bill. These 99 people, Thai people, not politicians, get to write the next constitution by holding meetings around the country to discuss the contents until approx 1 year later they come up with an interim constitution. This is then sent for referendum. If it passes, it passes if not, it goes back until they sort out the problem is..

The alternative is where politicians discuss and vote for individual sections in parliament. No referendum thats it.

And you know who to thank for the loss of the first choice, the more democratic choice, the one the dems, the PAD, Dr. Tul and the Nationalists and the CC made sure that the Thai citizens couldn't have...............................................

I like the sound of the CDA