Constitutional Court says charter amendments unconstitutional

[anon210]

The essence of a constitutional democracy is that institutions can be changed either by the people (referendum) or by elected officials (generally with a qualified majority). How do the Thais really expect us to believe in their farce of democracy, if a court can rule that constitutional changes (by essence changing institutions) are "anticonstitutional"?

[Tatsujin]

Yingluck's reaction to the court's ruling:

That guy with the whistle needs to be careful, the DSI will be after him . . .

[jdinasia]

Seems like a pretty fair decision. Making the Senate nothing more than an extension of the lower house would indeed change the system of government. The procedural issues in the debates were also problematic. Not dissolving the coalition parties avoids giving them a reason to bellyache and lets people focus on the genuine unconstutionality of what they attempted to do.

Agreed --- and worth some people seeing again.

I would have no issue with a constitutional amendment done in a similar what to how it is done in the US (I have no idea how it is done elsewhere and cba to look it up). In the US it is proposed, then sent to the states to be ratified. 75% of the states are needed to ratify. (38 out of 50). What was proposed in this case was a major change in the way the government operates and was decided by just a few people. That simply is not democratic. Changing organic law is far different than changing the constitution.

[fab4]

Well it may have escaped your notice that the 1997 Constitution was the first one written by "the people". It was also the first time a fully, directly elected Senate had been brought into being. It was also the first time a Constitutional Court was formed. So here we have in the present day the Constitutional Court saying that directly elected Senators are unconstitutional, but from 1997 and up to 2006 the Constitutional Court said nothing about the supposed "unconstitutionality" of that arrangement.

So what has happened between the old Constitutional Court and the new one? A Coup (and two judicial coups) that's what. At least they shied away from a 3rd judicial coup.

Let me help you out for the second time .....

The Constitutional Court in 2013 has one job only ... to determine if something is constitutional. All your whining and moaning about a historical document that is NOT the constitution of Thailand has absolutely no bearing on the decision today. What was constitutional in 1945, 1992, or 2006 isn't an issue. What is constitutional today is. Your argument is similar to saying that "since a poll tax was constitutionally legal prior to Jan 23 1964, then it is legal now even though the constitution was changed ......."

Perhaps you should go back and read the original post in this thread again as well as the updates to it.

I'll try again for the hard of thinking and throw out all historical references at the same time.

Did the CC vote 5-4 that the amendment to the constitution to change the Senate from a part appointed, part elected body to a fully elected body violated the Constitution under Article 68? Yes it did. OK, read this and tell me why it did.

Section 68. No person shall exercise the rights and liberties prescribed in the

Constitution to overthrow the democratic regime of government with the King as

Head of State under this Constitution or to acquire the power to rule the country by

any means which is not in accordance with the modes provided in this Constitution.

Edited November 20, 2013 by fab4

[metisdead]

An off topic post has been removed as well as the replies.

[thaicbr]

Well it may have escaped your notice that the 1997 Constitution was the first one written by "the people". It was also the first time a fully, directly elected Senate had been brought into being. It was also the first time a Constitutional Court was formed. So here we have in the present day the Constitutional Court saying that directly elected Senators are unconstitutional, but from 1997 and up to 2006 the Constitutional Court said nothing about the supposed "unconstitutionality" of that arrangement.

So what has happened between the old Constitutional Court and the new one? A Coup (and two judicial coups) that's what. At least they shied away from a 3rd judicial coup.

Let me help you out for the second time .....

The Constitutional Court in 2013 has one job only ... to determine if something is constitutional. All your whining and moaning about a historical document that is NOT the constitution of Thailand has absolutely no bearing on the decision today. What was constitutional in 1945, 1992, or 2006 isn't an issue. What is constitutional today is. Your argument is similar to saying that "since a poll tax was constitutionally legal prior to Jan 23 1964, then it is legal now even though the constitution was changed ......."

Perhaps you should go back and read the original post in this thread again as well as the updates to it.

I'll try again for the hard of thinking and throw out all historical references at the same time.

Did the CC vote 5-4 that the amendment to the constitution to change the Senate from a part appointed, part elected body to a fully elected body violated the Constitution under Article 68? Yes it did. OK, read this and tell me why it did.

Section 68. No person shall exercise the rights and liberties prescribed in the

Constitution to overthrow the democratic regime of government with the King as

Head of State under this Constitution or to acquire the power to rule the country by

any means which is not in accordance with the modes provided in this Constitution.

Write a letter to them and ask..They are the only ones that can give you an answer.. If you don't want to write to them ask the question in the letters page of the BKK post. They may answer!

[pookiki]

Looking at things from my western legal perspective, there are several issues in play here: 1) procedural irregularities; and 2) the constitutionality of the amendment to the constitution itself. In many instances, on a vote for legislation or for people in an election a standard that applies is: Are the violations so serious that it would have affected the outcome of the vote? I can't say for sure in this instance but I highly doubt it. On the second issue, it would appear that the court is saying that you can't negate an existing provision in the constitution OR one that upsets existing 'checks and balances'? When you are discussing 'checks and balances', exactly whose interests are you checking or balancing? In many instances in the US, there has been legislation to change appointed officials to elected officials - including prosecutors and judges. It is hardly regarded as unconstitutional or undemocratic.

Edited November 20, 2013 by pookiki

[Spare]

According to PTP cheating is not serious - just a minor issue.

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/breakingnews/Charupong-slams-ruling-30220136.html

Like a uni entrance exams where 10,000 student sat.

3 was found to cheat, and just ti be sure, all 9,997 student have to re-take the exams again.

Or worst invalidate the exam, so no student gets in uni that year.

[siampolee]

Morayu post # 53

So, the bandits got their <deleted> slapped.

They are lucky to still be in power and even luckier that nobody was made accountable for their deceit of the electorate

Well according to the Red Shirt leadership they will deliver their decision on the matter tonight. I do hope there aren't any phony votes involved in their decision making. One wonders just what they are going to announce as their campaign to install a dictatorship.

A serious bit of bum smacking coming up again or in the case of the Red Shirt leadership more a case of bum licking to encourage a flow of funds from their sponsor where ever he may be at the moment.

The facts are that the whole charter amendment bill was an illegitimate and perverted piece of politicking from the start until now.. Corrupt voting practices in parliament (well old habits die hard don't they) and a total distortion of what passes for the truth in the P.T.P. Thaksin puppet government regarding the true aims of the bill.

Now we see that that venerable old communist Weng has thrown his five bahts worth into the fray, the old red should understand that the days of communism and his and aunty Thida's dogmas have long since gone.

The die is cast, now we wait to see the reaction of the Thaksin fan(tasy) club, no doubt those reactions will be governed by the amount of money available to sponsor their activities.

This is the end game whether it might be a peaceful matter or not is down to the Red Shirt leaders, they've proved in the past that violent actions are their hallmark, we shall have to wait and see if they have the stomach for an action replay of 2010.

My personal thoughts are that the majority of Thai's are fully aware of the deceit that Thaksin practices and just how self serving he and the Red Shirt leadership are as shown by the fate of the Red Shirts still currently imprisoned. The pawns may well change the game plan this time round and Thaksin and his family and their brown nosing acolytes will be forced onto a fools mate end of game.

let us hope that the mate s settled peacefully . Madam Prime Minister would be well advised to dissolve parliament and call an election however I somehow doubt her puppet master brother will not allow such an action.

The time is here for the P.T.P. politicians and those in the coalition parties to take stock of themselves , there are some decent politicians out there (although few and far between) however if they heed what has happened and realise just how far they had gone down the road of selling Thailand and its peoples and themselves down the river we could well see a cleaner government in the future.

The Constitutional Court has made the opening move in this the end game now it is all or nothing.

Edited November 20, 2013 by siampolee

[pookiki]

Think about this for a minute: In a democratic system where the supreme court of the land determines that every attempt to change an existing constitution is unconstitutional, is there any realistic 'check and balance' between the legislative and the judiciary?

[h90]

The essence of a constitutional democracy is that institutions can be changed either by the people (referendum) or by elected officials (generally with a qualified majority). How do the Thais really expect us to believe in their farce of democracy, if a court can rule that constitutional changes (by essence changing institutions) are "anticonstitutional"?

Courts can rule that in most European countries. Just normal government check that before changing something.

A simple example is, if you write in the constitution that one ethnic, lets say the Hungarian minority in Austria has less rights than the others, than the constitutional court would nullify this law, because it brakes other more important laws (like that everyone is equal).

You couldn't even change that with a referendum. To change that you would have to change other basic laws in the constitution first.

[MoonShadow]

Think about this for a minute: In a democratic system where the supreme court of the land determines that every attempt to change an existing constitution is unconstitutional, is there any realistic 'check and balance' between the legislative and the judiciary?

Ahh, always a problem for countries with a written constitution.....not a lot of 'wriggle" room is there.....

[h90]

Think about this for a minute: In a democratic system where the supreme court of the land determines that every attempt to change an existing constitution is unconstitutional, is there any realistic 'check and balance' between the legislative and the judiciary?

yes, think about it. If checks and balances are a main part of the constitution than a change their is not unconstitutional unless you change the complete base of the constitution.

[Thainy Tim]

The essence of a constitutional democracy is that institutions can be changed either by the people (referendum) or by elected officials (generally with a qualified majority). How do the Thais really expect us to believe in their farce of democracy, if a court can rule that constitutional changes (by essence changing institutions) are "anticonstitutional"?

You don't understand the 3 powerhouse principle of democracy which is the TRUE form of a democratic system as adopted in most successful western democracies that have been honing the system for hundreds of years and have already made all the mistakes of the past.

When you merge 2 into 1 (parliament and the senate) and then ignore the third (constitutional court). That is dictatorship.

Your grasp of politics is very superficial.

[Thainy Tim]

So anyway... When are we having these new senatorial elections?

I mean, Yingluck and all her parliamentary and senate lackies declared that they will ignore the constitutional ruling, so I assume that next month we will see an election of 150 seats.

Or would I be right to assume that there will be NO such thing happening? Because in my book, that is enough to bring about a coup.

They had also better watch their step with the 2.2 trillion loan issue now also being on the CC's table. They can still ban parties and ministers for that one.

As a matter of fact THEY WILL ban parties and ministers should they announce a 100% senatorial election. Going against the constitutional court alone will see banning orders handed out.

Even if they say 'well we will just ignore the banning orders' will see the people rise up and blockade their homes to keep them out of parliament.

It's almost as if PTP were engineering civil disorder.

Edited November 20, 2013 by Thainy Tim

[hellodolly]

11.07am : Red-shirt leader Weng Tojirakarn tells red crowd at Rajamangala stadium. ’We won’t go home till we wipe out reactionaries from Thai soil."

Doesn't sound like peace is in his plans


11.25am : Natthawut Saikua says at Rajamangala where hundreds of red shirts are gathering, ’Reds throughout the country ready to fight peacefully.’

That ought to be interesting a red shirt fighting peacefully. I guess he means they are going to have a bunch of fixed wrestling matches.

11.27am: Red-shirt leader Nisit Sinthiprai tells red shirts at Rajamangala that power outside the system cannot defeat the power of the people.

Now what does that mean. The people are the power outside of the system

11.29am : Jatuporn Promphan no verdict will be worse than what happened on April 10 and May 19, 2010.

Maybe now he wishes he hadn't started firing at the Army on April 10 2010 and he should not have surrendered in May 19 2010.

Letting a loose cannon like him be a leader in a political party is a sign of low mentality followers. The man is not playing with a full deck.



1.51pm : 2pm : Judges voted 5:4 that charter amendment violated Articles of the 2007 Constitution but dropped request to dissolve political parties.

[ggold]

The essence of a constitutional democracy is that institutions can be changed either by the people (referendum) or by elected officials (generally with a qualified majority). How do the Thais really expect us to believe in their farce of democracy, if a court can rule that constitutional changes (by essence changing institutions) are "anticonstitutional"?

Your half right and half wrong!

There should have been a referendum at some stage, But you need to read up more on the theory of democracy re checks and balances of an elected body (PTP) in power!

[leggo]

It will be interesting to see what sort of democracy this country wishes to portray internationally - there is a real chance for it to mature now and it would be a shame if the opportunity is not grabbed. At the very least the judiciary has proved to impartial.

[metisdead]

Off topic posts and replies have been removed, this is not about a comparison with the US Constitution.

[hellodolly]

It will hit the fan... all too soon.

Well the reds have pretty well indicted they are not all OK with their statements in the first Article.

Not disbanding the PTP was OK with them. Now we have the PTP saying they won't abide by the decision on not having all senators elected.

They ran of at the mouth much like the Temple decision.

How can Tyhailand stand a government that says before a deccision is made they won't abide by it. That alone is reason enough for the Thai citizens to call for a reelection.

[Artisi]

The an army of paid thugs came to Bangkok to burn, loot, murder and pillage, twice.

You well know that is OK as they were there at the invitation and paid for by the pretend emperor while he stayed well away protecting his sorry ar_se.

[MikeOboe57]

Think about this for a minute: In a democratic system where the supreme court of the land determines that every attempt to change an existing constitution is unconstitutional, is there any realistic 'check and balance' between the legislative and the judiciary?

yes, think about it. If checks and balances are a main part of the constitution than a change their is not unconstitutional unless you change the complete base of the constitution.

This is not so. The US Constitution was amended to give women the right to vote. The US Constitution was amended to free blacks from slavery. These amendments did not change the complete base of the constitution, it just expanded existing rights. One of the biggest controversies in the US at the moment is the impact of the US Supreme Court in the 'Citizens United' decision in which the court ruled that the spending of money in elections was the equivalent of 'free speech'. The obvious impact of the ruling is to allow greater influence in the outcome of elections by people or organizations with tons of money. There is a drive to amend the US Constitution to negate this ruling. In essence, the legislative can have the final say by negating the Supreme Court's decision by way of a constitutional amendment. And that's the way it should be.

In your example a majority in parliament can bring back slavery, which is now unconstitutional and would be killed by the SC, by amending the constitution and that is certainly not the way it should be. The final word on any law is spoken by the CC, if requested and required.

The German CC has killed several attempts of the government to introduce new regulations and laws or alter existing ones - for the benefit of the average citizen. This is the way it should be.

You cannot trust politicians.

[Artisi]

I really don't see how allowing the senate to be democratically elected is unconstitutional; unless there is some vested interest that fears an elected senate.

seems the fear might have been be allowing the wife, son, daughter , uncle, cousin etc having the road to the senate paid for by the current corrupt politicians only interested in pursuing the agenda of a convicted criminal.

[metisdead]

Comment on moderation has been removed.

[DerringDo]

The OP picture shows "Silom Complex" doesn't it? Not Government complex A I believe.

Another day for Thailand to keep lurching forward. At least it may have postponed some underhand activities for a while. Nobody wins everything and nobody loses everything.

[metisdead]

An off topic post has been removed.

[Pi Sek]

Yingluck's reaction to the court's ruling:

Surprised she did'nt jump about the whistling.

Beat me to it!

[animatic]

"Furthermore the contempt for elected politicians was very clear."

As should be clear to all of us. Most are deserving of contempt.

[Roadman]

Think about this for a minute: In a democratic system where the supreme court of the land determines that every attempt to change an existing constitution is unconstitutional, is there any realistic 'check and balance' between the legislative and the judiciary?

The solution is simple for one of the best democracy's that I live in and which many other successful democracies apply. The check and balance is that any major changes to the governance of the country whether proposed by a sitting government or by an individual or group of citizens collecting sufficient petition signatures then a referendum is called or put to the people to vote on. This corrupt bunch of convicted fugitive criminal lackey's scum have that choice, and were indeed advised by the Court to apply that process. But as can be seen by their stance not only now but since Thaksin first came to government is they have total and utter contempt for the democratic process and the laws that apply to it. They think that democracy is the right to do what ever they want without having to answer to the laws that all others are expected to comply too. The reason they will not is they know that the people will not vote for the stripping away of the shreds of pathetic democratic process that they do have. The sooner the Shinawatra scum and their dictatorial control are removed from thai politics by democratic process the sooner the country can then try to come to terms with the requirements of democracy. The pain is going to be how much damage these corrupt, incompetent pack of thieves do to the country economically while they are still in power.

And well done to the judges for their ruling. Perhaps between the anti government ground swell that is coming with the support of the courts there is hope for Thailand yet with the Army this time being able to sit as a spectator on the sidelines while the people coup these scum.

[Doc46]

Exactly as I thought. There was cheating and irregularities in the voting process and insufficient debate. A procedural error. Bill is void.

Those 310 law-makers have shot themselves in the foot pre-empting a decision by saying they won't accept the outcome, they are now in contempt of court and can certainly be punished.

Yea right,,,Who's gonna DO THAT.