I guess the PTP reasoning is, if you throw enough $hit around some might just stick.

Well, when a group says it wants a legitimately existing government deposed and then engages in illegal activities to achieve that goal, itt does suggest something along the lines of overthrowing a government.

Which is not dissimilar to the events of 2010.

Sorry, who elected the Democrats?

A lot of arguments here about whether or not certain actions leading to the overthrow of an elected government are either legal, constitutional or legitimate. Let's see if we can make sense of the CC's decisions.

They have thrown out both petitions on the grounds that they were not constitutional matters but rather of criminal law. Now, our normal day to day language talks about 'the government' as if it is the PM and Ministers, whereas 'the government' - and not just in Thailand - is formed of the executive, legislative and judicial branches. So when we talk about 'overthrowing the government' what we really mean is 'overthrowing the executive branch of government'.

From the Constitution: Section 2. Thailand adopts a democratic regime of government with the King as Head of the State.

Section 3 goes on to define the tripartite division of government. I highlight that phrase as it is used on numerous occasions within the constitution and when used refers back to the whole tripartite government, and not just the executive. It is used in the section 68 being discussed.

So the CC has claimed that even a protest that aims to remove the executive branch of government is not in itself unconstitutional because it did not aim to change the whole "democratic regime of government with the King as Head of the State".

Tenuous, I think - but just because something may be illegal does not make it unconstitutional.

"Hence, there was no ground for the charter court to rule that the conduct and activities undertaken by Suthep constituted an attempt to overthrow democratic administration."

Well if what they are doing is NOT trying to overthrow a democratically elected government then I dont know what it means.

As for Suthep Thaugsuban, secretary-general of the PDRC, the court said whether the former Democrat MP would be held accountable for leading the protests in violation of the Criminal Code and other laws was not within the court’s responsibility to make judgement.

if it's not the court's responsibility to judge, who's is it?

History will judge

Edited February 6, 201412 yr by Tchooptip