Harris Blows an Easy Interview, Trump Pounces: She is Just Joe Biden Redux

[webfact]

House dissolution an option: Phumtham
Somroutai Sapsomboon
The Nation



BANGKOK: -- Pheu Thai Party secretary-general Phumtham Wechayachai believes the Constitutional Court is responsible for creating the crisis between the judiciary and legislative branches and says dissolution of the House may be the best solution in the current stand-off.

He said the crisis had broken out after 312 MPs - mostly Pheu Thai lawmakers and appointed senators - announced they would not accept the authority of the Constitutional Court over a judicial review to assess the constitutionality of a bill to amend Article 68.

In his interview to The Nation, Phumtham said that the crisis originated from the court's own one-sided interpretation of the charter.

"The power to amend the charter belongs to Parliament and no organisation should interpret the laws to expand its scope of power. This has become a crisis of conflict between two institutions - Parliament and the judiciary - who interpret the charter differently," Phutham told The Nation.

Phumtham said Pheu Thai had already tried its best to avoid confronting the judiciary by not pushing ahead to pass the Article 291-amendment bill in the third reading after the Constitutional Court ruled that the entire charter rewrite could not be done without first holding a public referendum. The 291-amendment bill sought to set up a charter-drafting assembly to rewrite the entire charter.

Since the judiciary and legislative branch interpret the charter differently, Pheu Thai might have to seek a second opinion from the public and other organisations, Phumthai said.

"There is no such thing as an instant formula in politics. We need to find the best way out of the crisis without hindering a possible solution just because we fear the outcome. We may have to hold public debates with experts or perhaps hold a public referendum. We may even have to dissolve the House," Phumtham said.

He added that it was not the government's intention to dissolve the House. "However, if there is no way out of the crisis and the only option left is House dissolution, then we must do it," he added.

He said it was not always certain that the government would win a snap election after dissolution of the House, but it would define more clearly where the support of the people lay on the issue.

It was normal in a democracy for the majority to have the last say when facing this kind of deadlock, said added.

"If our House seats were to dwindle after an election, we would review our position, but at the same time, we could get overwhelming backing from the people, then the Constitutional Court would have to review its stand," Phumtham said.

He denied that former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra made a Skype video call to a meeting of Pheu Thai MPs to ask them to get ready for a House dissolution.

Thaksin simply asked Pheu Thai MPs to regularly visit their constituents during the break of Parliament, he said.

The Pheu Thai secretary-general said impeachment of Constitutional Court judges might be an option for ending the crisis of conflict between the two branches of power, but Pheu Thai had not yet considered the proposal.

Although the plan to amend the charter had resulted in the stand-off, Phumtham insists that the amendments must be carried out because it was one of Pheu Thai's party promises during its election campaign.


-- The Nation 2013-05-13

[OzMick]

"He denied that former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra made a Skype video call to a meeting of Pheu Thai MPs to ask them to get ready for a House dissolution.
Thaksin simply asked Pheu Thai MPs to regularly visit their constituents during the break of Parliament, he said."

But he did make the call, and feels he has the right to "ask" PTP MPs to do his bidding. Does he also "ask" them to vote for the PTP policy he "suggests" to Cabinet?

[A Member]

He speaks of the court's " one sided interpretation of the charter " or in other words the court didn't agree with PTP and that can't be tolerated. The average person trusts courts to act fairly, with commonsense, to interpret where unnecessary and apply the law without fear or favour.

PTP simply want the law applied as they direct.

[brd199]

Pheu Thai Party secretary-general Phumtham Wechayachai
says dissolution of the House may be the best solution

So that's how one Shinawatra will push the other out to become the new PM

[whybother]

brd199, on 13 May 2013 - 07:04, said:

Pheu Thai Party secretary-general Phumtham Wechayachai

says dissolution of the House may be the best solution

So that's how one Shinawatra will push the other out to become the new PM

next pm.jpg

Little chance of PTP winning an election with Yaowoppa as the their PM candidate.

[bigbamboo]

"He denied that former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra made a Skype video call to a meeting of Pheu Thai MPs to ask them to get ready for a House dissolution.

Thaksin simply asked Pheu Thai MPs to regularly visit their constituents during the break of Parliament, he said."

But he did make the call, and feels he has the right to "ask" PTP MPs to do his bidding. Does he also "ask" them to vote for the PTP policy he "suggests" to Cabinet?

Lest we forget..... Thaksin thinks, Pheu Thai don't.

[Roadman]

The support of the people is not by way of dissolving the house for a snap election. An election campaign and the way people vote (or in Thailand's and more specifically Isaan's case have their votes brought) is decided on many more issues than changes to the constitution.

The answer is sitting in the bundle of options that Phumtham provided and that is go to the public with a referundum on a proposal for constitution change and if that is successful then a final referundum when the proposed changes have been ironed out. But the Dubai Amart fugitive convicted criminal knows that he does not have enough "brought and paid for" members of the public to ride rough shod over the whole public referundum process.

[whybother]

They prefer an election to a referendum, because they wouldn't get a majority "yes" vote for a single issue question. They probably wouldn't get a majority vote in an election, but that's easier to work around.

Edited May 13, 2013 by whybother

[daboyz1]

They prefer an election to a referendum, because they wouldn't get a majority "yes" vote for a single issue question. They probably wouldn't get a majority vote in an election, but that's easier to work around.

Bingo.

How many times did they jump up and down saying, "this is not about one man!" It always has been about one man.

[Robby nz]

What a pack of lies right from the first sentence to the last.

Number 1/

Constitutional Court is responsible for creating the crisis between the judiciary and legislative branches

The court is only doing its job of in accepting a petition to check whether the PT proposal is legal.

The court has only accepted a petition and has not even deliberated on that petition.

Then immediately contradicted by:

He said the crisis had broken out after 312 MPs - mostly Pheu Thai lawmakers and appointed senators - announced they would not accept the authority of the Constitutional Court

Will miss the next two obvious lies and go on to :

Phumtham said Pheu Thai had already tried its best to avoid confronting the judiciary

Of course they have done this by

1/ 312 MPs - mostly Pheu Thai lawmakers and appointed senators - announcing they would not accept the authority of the Constitutional Court.

2/ Having their red shirts demonstrate outside the court and threaten the judges.

And so on to the last.

it was one of Pheu Thai's party promises during its election campaign

He should check back and he will find this is not so.

What about the other promise that have not been kept like 15,000 baht starting salary for uni grads?

[ratcatcher]

brd199, on 13 May 2013 - 07:04, said:

Pheu Thai Party secretary-general Phumtham Wechayachai

says dissolution of the House may be the best solution

So that's how one Shinawatra will push the other out to become the new PM

next pm.jpg

Little chance of PTP winning an election with Yaowoppa as the their PM candidate.

They could probably run this and they'd still win handily.

[hellodolly]

brd199, on 13 May 2013 - 07:04, said:

Pheu Thai Party secretary-general Phumtham Wechayachai

says dissolution of the House may be the best solution

So that's how one Shinawatra will push the other out to become the new PM

next pm.jpg

Little chance of PTP winning an election with Yaowoppa as the their PM candidate.

They could probably run this woppa.jpg and they'd still win handily.

then Yaowoppa could be a spokesperson for them.

[GentlemanJim]

Well, it's also a great way to do a runner! Now that they have totally screwed the economy and the country, with bankruptcy looming on the horizon, maybe the pigs at the trough are getting full bellies. A nice way now to avoid any chance of taking responsibility for their criminal negligence would be to be 'voted out' of power at a snap election. How sweet! Then the main piggies can all take some well earned time off at the piggie villa's in Dubai and whoever wins a snap election can carry the rap.

It is rather telling the they would rather have an election than a referendum. No wonder Thaksin told them to go and visit their constituents during the break. No doubt armed with vans full of 500 baht notes to ensure success at the 'snap election'.

[waza]

"He said the crisis had broken out after 312 MPs - mostly Pheu Thai lawmakers and appointed senators - announced they would not accept the authority of the Constitutional Court over a judicial review to assess the constitutionality of a bill to amend Article 68."

So the crisis is of their own making.......

"Phumtham said Pheu Thai had already tried its best to avoid confronting the judiciary by not pushing ahead to pass the Article 291-amendment bill in the third reading after the Constitutional Court ruled that the entire charter rewrite could not be done without first holding a public referendum. The 291-amendment bill sought to set up a charter-drafting assembly to rewrite the entire charter."

and its because they didn't like the ruling that a constitution approved by a public referendum should be likewise have its changes legitimated by a public referendum............

"Second, the court ruled that a wholesale rewrite of the 2007 Constitution is unconstitutional. As a result, only amendments to some of the articles are legal."

That's not entirely true..........

"The court said that the authorities must hold a national referendum if there is going to be a wholesale rewrite of the Constitution via the set-up of a Charter Drafting Assembly"

"There is no such thing as an instant formula in politics. We need to find the best way out of the crisis without hindering a possible solution just because we fear the outcome. We may have to hold public debates with experts or perhaps hold a public referendum. We may even have to dissolve the House," Phumtham said."

So the PTP are in dispute with the CC because they ruled that a wholesale rewrite of the constitution should involve a referendum and this may cause a dissolution of the house or perhaps a referendum!!!!

How confusing, or maybe its just a convenient excuse to hold an early election to gain a voter mandate before the extent of the financial damage caused by the rice scam and other populist policy debacles become public knowledge and further erodes their support.

Edited May 13, 2013 by waza

[smedly]

so why not hold a referendum ??

because a referendum has boundaries that they don't like either

In this very polar political landscape were there are 2x major parties certain issues like voting on constitution amendments should not be a simple majority in the house, it should be 2/3 majority requirement - this whole mess wouldn't exist if it was so as it would ensure that only sensible changes that benefit all thais and the country be proposed - all the current problems would simply disappear if this was the case - lets not forget that PTP may have won an election but the DEMS still represent at least 30% of the people

[Thaddeus]

Well, it's also a great way to do a runner! Now that they have totally screwed the economy and the country,

That was my first thought.

[AleG]

Yes, because the last time this bunch dissolved parliament to try and get out of a self made clusterxxxx things went just swimmingly.

[waza]

Yes, because the last time this bunch dissolved parliament to try and get out of a self made clusterxxxx things went just swimmingly.

"We need to find the best way out of the crisis without hindering a possible solution just because we fear the outcome." Pheu Thai Party secretary-general Phumtham Wechayachai

[MobileContent]

My guess will be snap election with a referendum at the same time if they really dissolve the house.

Will they win? That's for sure. Democrats don't win elections any more and I wouldn't be surprised if Khun Suthep wants to become the next PM of Thailand.

Regarding a post that Isaan will sell their vote. All parties pay money via their canvassers and the same happens in the South via the democrats. If nobody would pay money in Isaan, they would still vote PTP.

So let's all sit back and watch the show.

The results are the same !

[whybother]

My guess will be snap election with a referendum at the same time if they really dissolve the house.

Will they win? That's for sure. Democrats don't win elections any more and I wouldn't be surprised if Khun Suthep wants to become the next PM of Thailand.

Regarding a post that Isaan will sell their vote. All parties pay money via their canvassers and the same happens in the South via the democrats. If nobody would pay money in Isaan, they would still vote PTP.

So let's all sit back and watch the show.

The results are the same !

There won't be a referendum. The election will be the "referendum".

"Vote for us for rice pledging, computer tablets, fast train, or any other reason, and we'll take it that you voted for us because you want Thaksin's crimes wiped clean."

[animatic]

The legislature makes laws, but those laws are subject to the interpretation by the Constitution Court.

That is a basic fact.

When the legislative tries to modify the constitution HOW it does so,

MUST be within the bounds of THE EXISTING CONSTITUTION,

which as the constitution states is interpreted by The Constitution Court.

Senators and others may petition the Constitution Court, if they believe

anyone, or any body, is trying to undermine the Constitution.

It IS the purvue of the Constitution Court to make sure the Legislative branch,

follows Constitutional provision about revising the Constitution.

This is proof that the 312 legislative brain-trusts disputing the Con. Court obligations,

have too little information about the constitution to understand it properly.

How can they adequately re-write what they clearly do not understand?

What is not clear is,

if the PTP has a clear majority in the house,

why don't they stop fighting these nitpicking battles,

and do it as stated in the Constitution, if they had, they might be done by now.

Right now they themselves have created multiple MORE impediments to getting it done.

[EvilDrSomkid]

There could be other reasons to dissolve the house. Some have been mentioned already, but I would posit that:

-Hold snap elections, with fatty at the front. PTP wins, mouthy Cinderella is out. (Duuh)

-PTP takes win as validation for their tearing up the 2007 constitution.

-PTP gets 4 more years of through-feeding and other general buffoonery.

It is laughable that the government does not recognize the CONSTITUTIONAL court's jurisdiction over the Constitution.

More to the point, I think it essential for the country that this government serves out its term.

It would do more for PTP and stabilizing the country.

[rubl]

A house dissolution forced upon the Pheu Thai led government which has this overwhelming and massive majorify and all Thai people behind them. Allegedly that is. Well at least a dissolution would be only two years after the last elections, and not one year like in 2006

[ogb]

How did the 1997 'Peoples Constitution" get removed?

What was the legal process backing that?

The 1997 constitution was removed by the illegal process of the coup leaders. It was replaced with the very similar 2007 constitution which was voted for "by the people" in a referendum (which, interestingly, the 1997 "people's constitution" wasn't).

Can you give any more details on that 2007 referendum:

- was it legal to campaign against it? (ie to campaign for a NO vote)

- what was the consequence if the referendum vote was NO (ie what constitution would the country have if the military sponsored draft was rejected?)

- what were the the quorum rules under that referendum (if any)?

- how did the main political parties recommend their followers vote in the referendum, and did they indicate whether any future amendments were required?

-

[waza]

How did the 1997 'Peoples Constitution" get removed?

What was the legal process backing that?

The 1997 constitution was removed by the illegal process of the coup leaders. It was replaced with the very similar 2007 constitution which was voted for "by the people" in a referendum (which, interestingly, the 1997 "people's constitution" wasn't).

Can you give any more details on that 2007 referendum:

- was it legal to campaign against it? (ie to campaign for a NO vote)

- what was the consequence if the referendum vote was NO (ie what constitution would the country have if the military sponsored draft was rejected?)

- what were the the quorum rules under that referendum (if any)?

- how did the main political parties recommend their followers vote in the referendum, and did they indicate whether any future amendments were required?

-

Google it or hire a research assistant

[BuddyPinkham]

This country needs to go back to a Monarchy

[whybother]

How did the 1997 'Peoples Constitution" get removed?

What was the legal process backing that?

The 1997 constitution was removed by the illegal process of the coup leaders. It was replaced with the very similar 2007 constitution which was voted for "by the people" in a referendum (which, interestingly, the 1997 "people's constitution" wasn't).

Can you give any more details on that 2007 referendum:

- was it legal to campaign against it? (ie to campaign for a NO vote)

- what was the consequence if the referendum vote was NO (ie what constitution would the country have if the military sponsored draft was rejected?)

- what were the the quorum rules under that referendum (if any)?

- how did the main political parties recommend their followers vote in the referendum, and did they indicate whether any future amendments were required?

-

You already know the answers to those questions.

[ogb]

How did the 1997 'Peoples Constitution" get removed?

What was the legal process backing that?

The 1997 constitution was removed by the illegal process of the coup leaders. It was replaced with the very similar 2007 constitution which was voted for "by the people" in a referendum (which, interestingly, the 1997 "people's constitution" wasn't).

Can you give any more details on that 2007 referendum:

- was it legal to campaign against it? (ie to campaign for a NO vote)

- what was the consequence if the referendum vote was NO (ie what constitution would the country have if the military sponsored draft was rejected?)

- what were the the quorum rules under that referendum (if any)?

- how did the main political parties recommend their followers vote in the referendum, and did they indicate whether any future amendments were required?

-

Google it or hire a research assistant

Ok thanks - I just did, and its clear there were so many problems with that 2007 referendum that it couldn't be considered free, fair or democratic any way.

Unfortunately I was not able to find any explaination from the Constitution Court of just how the illegal removal of the 1997 peoples constitution was made legal.

[whybother]

Ok thanks - I just did, and its clear there were so many problems with that 2007 referendum that it couldn't be considered free, fair or democratic any way.

Unfortunately I was not able to find any explaination from the Constitution Court of just how the illegal removal of the 1997 peoples constitution was made legal.

The illegal removal of the 1997 constitution was made legal in the referendum on the 2007 constitution. Whatever the problems with the 2007 referendum, the result stands. Changes do need to be made to the constitution to make it stronger. Interestingly, PTP (and all of Thaksin's previous proxy parties) want to remove the checks and balances that are in there. They even want to remove some that were in the 1997 "people's constitution".

[rubl]

Just wondering, is the topic a possible House dissolution, one that would follow the 2007 constitution that is? Unlike the 2006 dissolution which followed the 1997 version. Interestingly when we look at the contents of the Constitution versions rather than have discussion on how any of the two were created, we'll see that in almost all aspects the 2007 has meaningful clarifications with lots of articles identical. The amnesty for the coupmakes is a bit of a blot on the 2007 version. that probably explains why the head coup person now sides with Pheu Thai to get another amnesty.

Anyway, with all money gathered another landslide win seems ours, as in April 2006. Allegedly that is.