Ruling paves way for Constitutional State: Nitirat Group

[Emptyset]

The interesting thinfg is that we seem to have a classical case of "This is not what I want, therefore this is wrong".

The reasoning seems to completely forgo the actual ruling, just 'they shouldn't', they can't', 'they're not allowed', ...

Er, no. Nitirat's reasoning makes perfect sense and is accordance with what the constitution says. Can you show how their reasoning is incorrect by pointing to passages in the constitution? Or are you just going to make do with an argument from authority ("but the court says") because it suits the side you support? I've yet to see anyone point to the actual Thai constitution and say 'this is why PT and Nitirat are wrong', we've instead had a load of irrelevant stuff about the Nazis lol.

Why does Nitirat mention 'the German experience'? I would guess it's because the German constitution has a provision that allows action to be taken against anyone trying to overthrow the democratic regime. And the Thai constitution's section 68 is there for similar reasons.

Here it is again: '“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“.'

So, "no person", and Nitirat's point is that the government or the parliament isn't a person. Neither were they trying to overthrow the democratic regime of government. It seems pretty clear. Now whether the court is empowered to deal with the procedural rules that PT broke, I don't know.If they are, surely they should've just ruled on that, allowing the parliament to amend at a later date in accordance with proper procedure (and of course, punishing the individual PT MPs who broke the rules). But that's not what they did, is it?

[rubl]

The interesting thinfg is that we seem to have a classical case of "This is not what I want, therefore this is wrong".

The reasoning seems to completely forgo the actual ruling, just 'they shouldn't', they can't', 'they're not allowed', ...

Er, no. Nitirat's reasoning makes perfect sense and is accordance with what the constitution says. Can you show how their reasoning is incorrect by pointing to passages in the constitution? Or are you just going to make do with an argument from authority ("but the court says") because it suits the side you support? I've yet to see anyone point to the actual Thai constitution and say 'this is why PT and Nitirat are wrong', we've instead had a load of irrelevant stuff about the Nazis lol.

Why does Nitirat mention 'the German experience'? I would guess it's because the German constitution has a provision that allows action to be taken against anyone trying to overthrow the democratic regime. And the Thai constitution's section 68 is there for similar reasons.

Here it is again: '“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“.'

So, "no person", and Nitirat's point is that the government or the parliament isn't a person. Neither were they trying to overthrow the democratic regime of government. It seems pretty clear. Now whether the court is empowered to deal with the procedural rules that PT broke, I don't know.If they are, surely they should've just ruled on that, allowing the parliament to amend at a later date in accordance with proper procedure (and of course, punishing the individual PT MPs who broke the rules). But that's not what they did, is it?

Er, no.

1. I can just as much show you how Nitrat's reasoning is incorrect as you can show me the Constitutional court's reasoning was incorrect. Mind you the 'unconstitutional ruling' sounds so 'matter of fact' that the law lecturer Vorachet Pakeerat should be able to come with more that what we've read here. You really need excellent reasoning before you can call a ruling of the constitutional court 'unconstitutional'. Just saying so is not enough.

2. The court's ruling says nothing about whether or not the government was trying to overthrow the 'democratic regime of government'. The court ruled that the procedure to come to an accepted, modified article was followed faultily.

3. 'no person' has different meanings in legal descriptions. Not sure how it's really described in the Thai text, but I can give you this:

(Law) an individual or group that is allowed by law to take legal action, as plaintiff or defendent. It may include natural persons as well as fictitious persons (such as corporations).

- Blackstone.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Legal+person

[BigC]

Aside from anything else, i would suggest that if the government of the day wants to go ahead and reform the constitution, they do so by making sure that all voting procedures and debating are carried out correctly.  I mean honestly, when the Court can point out quite obviously that MP's have been using multiple voting cards, it shows that the system is completely sick.

 

So before they moan about a constitutional state, I suggest they admit that the entire process wasn't carried out in accordance with the expected rules.  Once that is done, then they can moan about the conduct of the court, and about how the government can or cannot go about changing the constitution.

Like when George bush was elected people who were lease likely to vote for him had the poling stations very far away with hard access

Come on every country has there own tricks to win votes and so do all parties

Even in England they give our passports to people in exchange for votes

Anyway all things aside I am selfish as one person said quite rightly

I hope they don't take over airports this time or do anything that effects my day to day life

If forang cannot have a say in what goes on here then please Thai people don't take your nagger out on us as we are nothing apart from possible income thanks

Sent from my iPhone using ThaiVisa app