308 ex-lawmakers seek postponement of charge clarification

[SICHONSTEVE]

"'I’m confused. If a member of the parliament cannot amend the law, why do we have an election?', asked Mr Udomdej."

Yes, the legislative can amend existing laws, but when doing so it must adhere to commonly accepted standards of ethics and take heed that the amendment benefits the country, population and democracy as a whole and thus is not unlawful.

To amend laws so they serve your party's agenda or you or your cronies is unethical.

Just being voted in and serving as the government does NOT give you a free pass at amending laws as you see fit, dummy! Does that concept elude you, perhaps? If so, it'd tell volumes about your morality.

Morals, ethics, benefits (to ALL) are not words in the 'red' dictionary!!!

Dummies is - it is used to describe all of those people who adhere to 'red principles'.

[Nickymaster]

"'I’m confused. If a member of the parliament cannot amend the law, why do we have an election?', asked Mr Udomdej."

Yes, the legislative can amend existing laws, but when doing so it must adhere to commonly accepted standards of ethics and take heed that the amendment benefits the country, population and democracy as a whole and thus is not unlawful.

To amend laws so they serve your party's agenda or you or your cronies is unethical.

Just being voted in and serving as the government does NOT give you a free pass at amending laws as you see fit, dummy! Does that concept elude you, perhaps? If so, it'd tell volumes about your morality.

I bet you that many PT MP's don't even know what you wrote.

Well said. Key is indeed that it must benefit the population not only the PT party.

[SICHONSTEVE]

"'I’m confused. If a member of the parliament cannot amend the law, why do we have an election?', asked Mr Udomdej."

Yes, the legislative can amend existing laws, but when doing so it must adhere to commonly accepted standards of ethics and take heed that the amendment benefits the country, population and democracy as a whole and thus is not unlawful.

To amend laws so they serve your party's agenda or you or your cronies is unethical.

Just being voted in and serving as the government does NOT give you a free pass at amending laws as you see fit, dummy! Does that concept elude you, perhaps? If so, it'd tell volumes about your morality.

I bet you that many PT MP's don't even know what you wrote.

Well said. Key is indeed that it must benefit the population not only the PT party.

They know alright!!!

The only trouble is they cannot think for themselves as they don't have the authority to do so as that is dictated to them from a far away place!!!

[Mackie]

this would seem one reason why a reform is needed before an election

What reform would you suggest rubi?

Perhaps the reform could discuss why it was perfectly legal to propose an all elected senate in the 1997 Constitution without threatening the overthrow of the State, then perfectly OK for the military Junta to change the constitution so that the Senate was half elected and half selected, but when the PTP try to reverse that situation, suddenly it's illegal?

Of course I understand that logic is not a requirement for any of sutheps fanboyz, but don't you think that maybe, just maybe, the dems are trying to regain power by yet another judicial coup?

If a judicial coup was to happen, guess what, who's fault is it. The administration. With all the corruption and underhandedness, they have tied the noose around their own neck. So you can call a Judicial coup, I call it justice.

Perhaps you can explain the facts I mentioned in my post rather than just reply with the usual knee jerk reactionary, "it's the governments fault".

Perhaps you can explain your continual knee jerk reactions, it's all anti-government and rich elites fault. Moreover, I'm certain many posters here would like to here how you justify your selective support for Thai constitution. When it suits current government hidden agendas, you call upon Thai constitution. When it doesn't suit their vested interest, the constitution is not good enough. There is a word in English dictionary which accurately describes your attitude...It starts with h........

[rubl]

And again you say things less than truthful. The military junta did not change the constitution and you know it.

Playing the "whybother pedantic card" are we, scorecard. The military junta set up a constitution drafting assembly which changed the constitution

The military junta-appointed Constitution Drafting Assembly unanimously approved the draft in July 2007,despite a lot of public controversy about several clauses. The junta passed a law making it illegal to publicly criticize the draft.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Constitution_of_Thailand

There was some controversy surrounding the drafting of the new, permanent constitution by the committee selected by the National Assembly. The selection of committee members was fraught with turmoil, voting irregularities, and claims of bribery. Almost immediately, the committee was faced with pressure to include specific provisions in the new constitution. Different political, religious, and social groups attempted to bribe, sway, and threaten the committee into including provisions which protected or advanced their particular interests. http://www.constitutionnet.org/country/constitutional-history-thailand

So don't accuse me of lying again.

An interesting article on differences between the 1997 and the 2007 constitution. I suggest you read it, at least the first page which seems to say

- First, there are many limits imposed on the executive branch of Government, especially the top-notch of the executive branch.

- Second, there are more detailed provisions concerning human rights in the new Constitution

- Third, under the current (i.e. new; rubl) Constitution, various independent agencies have more powers to protect people.

- Fourth, the courts will have more power under the new Constitution.

- Fifth, the ordinary people will be able to question politicians more easily under the new Constitution as well to submit laws and seek transparency in Government.

"Deconstructing Thailand's (New) Eighteenth Constitution

Vitit Muntarbhorn

This article is published with the kind permission of Vitit Muntarbhorn. This article originally appeared in Chulalongkorn Law Volume 26 No.3 February 2008."

http://www.thailawforum.com/articles/Thailand-Eighteeth-Consititution.html

[scorecard]

Traitor of country should be arrest directly... alt=whistling.gif pagespeed_url_hash=3700464609 width=19 height=18>

You say traitor.

Many others would say hero.

[tingtongteesood]

what is the point in waiting until after the election ? If they are elected they have immunity. HELL NO !!!!!!!

[tingtongteesood]

The question that begs to be asked, is whether the NACC has any jurisdiction in this matter at all. The Constitutional Court dubiously declared the actual process of constitutional amendment under the constitution as unconstitutional but didn't set penalties.... So disgruntled anti-democrats went to the NACC. Instead of deciding that it didn't have the authority to consider the flimsy case, the politicized NACC made up the rules as it went along to get the result the anti-democrats wanted..... Bottom line, at this point, it appears that the politicized judiciary is the preferred coup vehicle, and this NACC thing is one of the initiatives launched by the elites and their street-based coup-mongers to achieve that end.... If it walks like a duck, quackes like a duck, it is in all likelihood an attempted 'judicial coup".

''It's a conspiracy I tell you ! My dearly beloved wannabe dictator fugitive leader living in Dubai did not get exactly what he wants, what few mechanisms remain to stop him from becoming a dictator removed ! It must all be some coup driven conspiracy !!!!!! Why can't the people of Thailand just let him win and be the dictator like he wants to ? Boo hoo !!!''

The crap you spout daily might be funny if it wasn't so sad that you actually believe it all !

[tingtongteesood]

Sorry, with BKK shut down, all road closed, could not go to court right now.

Perhaps after you, Suthep.

The airport hasn't been closed, flights from Dubai are still arriving many times daily. After you Mr. fugitive puppet master.......

[tingtongteesood]

The law was designed for the precise propose of dissolving parties and banning executives. This time around to get the judicial coup removing Yingluck and PT from power on the grounds of Section 68 would mean the Court would need to disregard the the actual wording of Section 68 making such a decision a farce.

The Justice system isnt metering out justice if it flaunting or disregarding its own laws. Then again that will be nothing new here.

Would you care to provide us with a copy of section 68 here and explain to us exactly why ? Try and make a real argument ?

[SICHONSTEVE]

The law was designed for the precise propose of dissolving parties and banning executives. This time around to get the judicial coup removing Yingluck and PT from power on the grounds of Section 68 would mean the Court would need to disregard the the actual wording of Section 68 making such a decision a farce.

The Justice system isnt metering out justice if it flaunting or disregarding its own laws. Then again that will be nothing new here.

Would you care to provide us with a copy of section 68 here and explain to us exactly why ? Try and make a real argument ?

Right to Protect the Constitution

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.

In the case where a person or a political party has committed the act under paragraph one, the person knowing of such act shall have the right to request the Prosecutor General to investigate its facts and submit a motion to the Constitutional Court for ordering cessation of such act without, however, prejudice to the institution of a criminal action against such person.

In the case where the Constitutional Court makes a decision compelling the political party to cease to commit the act under paragraph two, the Constitutional Court may order the dissolution of such political party.

In the case where the Constitutional Court makes the dissolution order under paragraph three, the right to vote of the President and the executive board of directors of the dissolved political party at the time the act under paragraph one has been committed shall be suspended for the period of five years as from the date the Constitutional Court makes such order.

So we may be saying goodbye to over 300 PTP and minor party's MP's as they have clearly violated the constitution!!

[tingtongteesood]

Sorry SICHONSTEVE, out of likes but like your comment very much indeed....

[SICHONSTEVE]

Sorry SICHONSTEVE, out of likes but like your comment very much indeed....

That's OK, it's the thought that counts - I have lent you one of mine.