Pheu Thai M Ps To Seek Impeachment Of Constitution Court Judges

[Robby nz]

Using courts to neuter parliamentary rights will eventually bite Thailand on the ass,

I suspect TAH you have that one wrong it should be:

Using parliament to neuter the courts rights will eventually bite Thailand on the ass.

You see parliament and the PM's therein must be answerable to the law of the land the same as the rest of the population.

Just because MP's are voted in or the party in power are in power does not give them the right to break the law.

What is happening here is an attempt to restrict or even remove the power of the law over parliament and the actions of those herein parliament.

Furthermore; the reason PT want to alter the constitution clause by clause is that to do a complete revamp they must hold a referendum and are scared to do that because they would require a 50% yes vote in such a referendum and doubt they would get that.

[rubl]

To provide the text of another countries constitution here, would probably be a bit off topic. Instead may Ijust post this interesting part from the Dutch Constitution, or actually fom an unwritten part of it?

"Some of the most basic fundamental laws in the Dutch constitutional system are not explicitly expressed in the written Constitution. These include the rule that the Dutch monarch cannot dissolve the House of Representatives more than once because of a conflict over a single political issue and that the Senate shall never block legislation for mere party politics, so that coalition governments (all Dutch governments since the 19th century) do not need a majority in the Senate."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_Netherlands

[Thai at Heart]

Using courts to neuter parliamentary rights will eventually bite Thailand on the ass,

I suspect TAH you have that one wrong it should be:

Using parliament to neuter the courts rights will eventually bite Thailand on the ass.

You see parliament and the PM's therein must be answerable to the law of the land the same as the rest of the population.

Just because MP's are voted in or the party in power are in power does not give them the right to break the law.

What is happening here is an attempt to restrict or even remove the power of the law over parliament and the actions of those herein parliament.

Furthermore; the reason PT want to alter the constitution clause by clause is that to do a complete revamp they must hold a referendum and are scared to do that because they would require a 50% yes vote in such a referendum and doubt they would get that.

Well, there has to be away for the parliament to alter the constitution, or is by coup the only way?

The court told them they could do it article by article without a referendum, or is this issue to go round on circles forever?

[waza]

Using courts to neuter parliamentary rights will eventually bite Thailand on the ass,

I suspect TAH you have that one wrong it should be:

Using parliament to neuter the courts rights will eventually bite Thailand on the ass.

You see parliament and the PM's therein must be answerable to the law of the land the same as the rest of the population.

Just because MP's are voted in or the party in power are in power does not give them the right to break the law.

What is happening here is an attempt to restrict or even remove the power of the law over parliament and the actions of those herein parliament.

Furthermore; the reason PT want to alter the constitution clause by clause is that to do a complete revamp they must hold a referendum and are scared to do that because they would require a 50% yes vote in such a referendum and doubt they would get that.

Well, there has to be away for the parliament to alter the constitution, or is by coup the only way?

The court told them they could do it article by article without a referendum, or is this issue to go round on circles forever?

and they are doing it article by article, but lets do it by the book not through threats and intimidation and let the people have the last word. The only one rushing the process is Thaksin.

Edited April 21, 2013 by waza

[Thai at Heart]

Using courts to neuter parliamentary rights will eventually bite Thailand on the ass,

I suspect TAH you have that one wrong it should be:

Using parliament to neuter the courts rights will eventually bite Thailand on the ass.

You see parliament and the PM's therein must be answerable to the law of the land the same as the rest of the population.

Just because MP's are voted in or the party in power are in power does not give them the right to break the law.

What is happening here is an attempt to restrict or even remove the power of the law over parliament and the actions of those herein parliament.

Furthermore; the reason PT want to alter the constitution clause by clause is that to do a complete revamp they must hold a referendum and are scared to do that because they would require a 50% yes vote in such a referendum and doubt they would get that.

Well, there has to be away for the parliament to alter the constitution, or is by coup the only way?

The court told them they could do it article by article without a referendum, or is this issue to go round on circles forever?

and they are doing it article by article, but lets do it by the book not through threats and intimidation. The only one rushing it is Thaksin.

Well, they haven't even tabled the exact amendments yet, and people are already running to the CC complaining it isn't constitutional.

So one would have to ask the question, on what grounds they accepted the case, since there is no specific statement of what they want to change.

I can wholeheartedly understand people's worry that Thaksin may take over the country. The problem is, when these rather naive people wrote the current constitution, they assumed that Thaksin would be long buried politically, and Abhisit would be running the country. So they rather naively believed that they would never get to this situation, so they didn't put a super majority clause into the system, because this would hamper Abhsit (one of their nice guys) should he want to do something.

So, now, instead of writing a stronger constitution, what they have done is given Thaksin a way back to manipulate the system. But no one can have it all ways, to say that PTP is bad so they shouldn't modify it because maybe something goes wrong, but that the Dems are good so they should be allowed to do it, should the shoe be on the other foot. It is so utterly naive of how the judiciary and those at the top believe this country works that they leave these ridiculous loop holes but get pissed off when they are used apparently legally in a way they don't want.

They want to opportunity open for themselves to manipulate the system if and when they want, but dig their heels in when the system is used in a way they think is not right. This endless running to the CC because they fear overthrow of this, or corruption of that could have been stopped so simply if they had put in a super majority clause. They thought having an appointed senate, but that patently wasn't enough.

[rubl]

"Well, they haven't even tabled the exact amendments yet"

So, can we get the text of the proposed changed article as it is at this moment together with the reasoning behind and justification of the change?

[Thai at Heart]

"Well, they haven't even tabled the exact amendments yet"

So, can we get the text of the proposed changed article as it is at this moment together with the reasoning behind and justification of the change?

I don't know, so on what grounds did anyone run to the CC with a complaint?

On the basis that maybe possibly, it may happen that, sometime in the future, there is a likelihood that ......

[AleG]

"Well, they haven't even tabled the exact amendments yet"

So, can we get the text of the proposed changed article as it is at this moment together with the reasoning behind and justification of the change?

I don't know, so on what grounds did anyone run to the CC with a complaint?

On the basis that maybe possibly, it may happen that, sometime in the future, there is a likelihood that ......

They complained because one of the amendments PTP wants is to remove the ability of anyone except the Attorney General (who is appointed by the government) to file complains with the CC, therefore neutering the CC. If they'd wait until that gets ramroded in... well, that would be like locking the barn door after the horse has bolted.

[Thai at Heart]

"Well, they haven't even tabled the exact amendments yet"

So, can we get the text of the proposed changed article as it is at this moment together with the reasoning behind and justification of the change?

I don't know, so on what grounds did anyone run to the CC with a complaint?

On the basis that maybe possibly, it may happen that, sometime in the future, there is a likelihood that ......

They complained because one of the amendments PTP wants is to remove the ability of anyone except the Attorney General (who is appointed by the government) to file complains with the CC, therefore neutering the CC. If they'd wait until that gets ramroded in... well, that would be like locking the barn door after the horse has bolted.

Has is been officially tabled for debate yet?

And if it's passed I would suggest that the dems organise 1 million supporters to petition the attorney generals office with cases.

Edited April 21, 2013 by Thai at Heart

[rubl]

An amendment proposal has been tabled and discussed and will get a second reading when parliament gets back from recess. In the mean time a team of 45 MPs (!) has got time to study the proposal and possible changes already discussed. The general public doesn't seem to have been made aware of the significance of the changes apart from "it's good, trust me", "Thaksin said so", "the others don't like it".

So, a petition to the Constitutional Court seems valid at this moment as some didn't have to wait to get more info.

[smutcakes]

An amendment proposal has been tabled and discussed and will get a second reading when parliament gets back from recess. In the mean time a team of 45 MPs (!) has got time to study the proposal and possible changes already discussed. The general public doesn't seem to have been made aware of the significance of the changes apart from "it's good, trust me", "Thaksin said so", "the others don't like it".

So, a petition to the Constitutional Court seems valid at this moment as some didn't have to wait to get more info.

And you trust these MP's to file a complaint for the good of the public? Or something beneficial for themselves and their party?

[rubl]

So, someone trust the Pheu Thaksin party to seek impeachment of the constitutional Court for the good of the public? LOL?

[smutcakes]

So, someone trust the Pheu Thaksin party to seek impeachment of the constitutional Court for the good of the public? LOL?

Great, you cant even answer the question. It was simple enough, but you are unable to answer. Shows your impartiality.

[ZhouZhou]

So, a duly elected government, with a parliamentary majority seeks to reorganise some part of an inept and badly designed judicial system.

Where is the problem ??

There is no problem. looks totally fine to me.

that is how parliamentarian democracy works.

[dickyknee]

So, a duly elected government, with a parliamentary majority seeks to reorganise some part of an inept and badly designed judicial system.

Where is the problem ??

There is no problem. looks totally fine to me.

that is how parliamentarian democracy works.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_powers

[Noistar]

Seems PT want everyone to see and hear them shouting in the playground.

Their inexperience is blatantly obvious when they go screaming "it's not fair. If you don't do what we say we'll ........."

Parliamentary Democracy, electoral mandate, whatever. The government just shows that Thailand is at the bottom of the pile of their priorities.