Constitutional Court says charter amendments unconstitutional

[Ricardo]

Yingluck's reaction to the court's ruling:

Surprised she did'nt jump about the whistling.

Memo to the head of the DSI ... "Get straight onto prosecuting these whistlers, for rebellion or treason or whatever-else you can find !"

[tgeezer]

"Red-shirt leader Weng Tojirakarn tells red crowd at Rajamangala stadium. We wont go home till we wipe out reactionaries from Thai soil.""

Is it just me or does his communist past shine through sometimes? Just like his remark on eradication the Democrats.

Certainly the language is interesting, I wonder if it sounds the same in Thai, that is to say are "red shirts", actually seen as communist by the establishment?

[bander]

A win win for everyone so theres no reason to fight, but even so the Reds react in their usual manner......

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

Who are these reactionaries that Weng threatens?

He probably have to ask Mr. T in Dubai that question

[paul6119]

One of the basic differences between democracy and dictatorship is that in a democracy everybody including the government has to follow the law. If the government refuses to follow the law it is practising dictatorship. That simple.

But ok, I remember, T. made that clear already many years ago that actually democracy is not his goal.

[rubl]

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.

My dear Fab4, please check and re-read the ruling of the Constitutional Court again.

They DID NOT rule on 'elected senators unconstitutional'. They DID rule on the process which was not followed correctly with the government maybe in haste to push through yet another bit of 'useful' laws and articles.

As for what happened between two constitutions. Well, that would get us off topic, now wouldn't it?

[rubl]

"Red-shirt leader Weng Tojirakarn tells red crowd at Rajamangala stadium. We wont go home till we wipe out reactionaries from Thai soil.""

Is it just me or does his communist past shine through sometimes? Just like his remark on eradication the Democrats.

Certainly the language is interesting, I wonder if it sounds the same in Thai, that is to say are "red shirts", actually seen as communist by the establishment?

I don't think so. The communist thing is from the past, just some legacy you might say. It's just that Dr. weng occasually seems to fall back on all phrases he may have learned while in Vietnam fourty years ago.

[rubl]

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.

Disagree completely though there's a certain karma given PTP's foolish attempt to steamroller the umbrella amnesty.Verdict underwrites the wholesale politicisation (keeping the Senate 50% appointed is fundamental for the old unelected elites) of the Constitututional Court.Furthermore the contempt for elected politicians was very clear.The Court ludicrously tried to set a precedent for any elected government to make a change to the coup makers driven 2007 constitution.There's absolutely no reason why the 2007 constitution should be sacrosact.Ironic that the excellent 1997 constitution largely driven by Khun Anand was trashed without a thought.No progress at all and Thailand remains stuck in its old rut.

Jayboy, nice post, but almost like the answer to a question not asked.

The constitutional Court didn't even rule on the contents of the modified article, only on the process followed, the way the article was modified . That's all. The 2007 constitution is 80 - 90% identical to the 1997 version. Lots of clarifications and the black blot on coup leader amnesty. I posted a link to an article of a leading legal expert who wrote about the pro/cons, Thai expect. Just do some searching, you'll find it.