Charter court is to rule on PM's status: Suthep

[webfact]

Charter court is to rule on PM’s status



BANGKOK: -- The Constitution Court will soon be asked to rule on the status of caretaker Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra now that there has been no House of Representatives for more than 30 days making it impossible for the voting of a new prime minister.

People’s Democratic Reform Committee Secretary-General Suthep Thaugsuban said Tuesday night that he had received letters from a former Supreme Court chief justice and a former Supreme Court chief judge who both suggested that Ms Yingluck’s role as the caretaker prime minister had ended after the passage of the 30-day period since the February 2 election.

One of the judges, Mrs Yindee Watcharapong Torsuwan, said Suthep, maintained that the February 2 election was void and hence the government should also lose its status.

The ex-Supreme Court chief justice contended that Ms Yingluck could not carry on with her duty as the caretaker prime minister continuously until there is a House of Representatives. In such a case, he suggested that Article 7 of the Constitution should be applied in order that an interim prime minister would be nominated by the Senate president.

Source: http://englishnews.thaipbs.or.th/charter-court-rule-pms-status/


-- Thai PBS 2014-03-05

[howzat]

How soon is soon or is this just more high voltage rhetoric!!

[ChrisY1]

Another issue due to drag on for ages....

Chalerm blurted out the other day that this administration could run out the full 180 days.....!

I can't follow it at all any more....!! Hope the Charter Court understands

[Tatsujin]

How soon is soon or is this just more high voltage rhetoric!!

The decision will be made before the end of this week.

[focus27]

What does article 7 actually say?

"Section 7. Whenever no provision under this Constitution is applicable to any case, it shall be decided in accordance with the constitutional practice in the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of the State."

Now, "the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of the State" is merely the long-winded definition of the Thai constitutional monarchy, so is just one long compound noun defined in section 2.

The phrase 'constitutional practice" is not defined, but we must assume means those sections that define rights and obligations without defining specific actions - and as we are witnessing, there are many such 'black holes' in the document.

So, section 7 says: if the Constitution does not tell you what to do, do whatever you want, so long as it is not prohibited.

The idea that the President of the Senate can select an interim Prime Minister is not written anywhere but is consistent with our simplified definition of section 7. The only tiny problem is that the Constitution explicitly states that a PM must also be an MP.

So perhaps our esteemed chief justice would interpret section 7 as saying: if the Constitution does not tell you what to do, do whatever you want, so long as it is not prohibited.

And remember, this is not a judicial coup; nope, not at all.

BTW I have always said that, given the House was not going to be able to convene, the Senate would eventually select a new Council of Ministers, but how are they going to ignore the requirement of the PM? I'm sure a carefully worded decree can get around anything, but it also has to overcome the decree itself being potentially unconstitutional! Who wrote this crappy constitution?! Don't ask.

[WitawatWatawit]

What does article 7 actually say?

"Section 7. Whenever no provision under this Constitution is applicable to any case, it shall be decided in accordance with the constitutional practice in the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of the State."

Now, "the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of the State" is merely the long-winded definition of the Thai constitutional monarchy, so is just one long compound noun defined in section 2.

The phrase 'constitutional practice" is not defined, but we must assume means those sections that define rights and obligations without defining specific actions - and as we are witnessing, there are many such 'black holes' in the document.

So, section 7 says: if the Constitution does not tell you what to do, do whatever you want, so long as it is not prohibited.

The idea that the President of the Senate can select an interim Prime Minister is not written anywhere but is consistent with our simplified definition of section 7. The only tiny problem is that the Constitution explicitly states that a PM must also be an MP.

So perhaps our esteemed chief justice would interpret section 7 as saying: if the Constitution does not tell you what to do, do whatever you want, so long as it is not prohibited.

And remember, this is not a judicial coup; nope, not at all.

BTW I have always said that, given the House was not going to be able to convene, the Senate would eventually select a new Council of Ministers, but how are they going to ignore the requirement of the PM? I'm sure a carefully worded decree can get around anything, but it also has to overcome the decree itself being potentially unconstitutional! Who wrote this crappy constitution?! Don't ask.

Question is, which MPs? Can't be from the Feb 2 election as they haven't been sworn in. So, must be from the previous admin. But haven't they lost their status after 30 days like the PM?

[PepperMe]

It is quite simple....... The constitutional court has the ultimate say on the interpretation of the constitution.

They are the highest court in the land, and they are its keepers, and how they interpret the constitution, no matter what else... It is binding by law and can not be over-ridden.

No matter how many grey areas there are. They have the only and final say. It is as simple as that.

Remember when the EC went to the C Court and asked for an interpretation on postponing the election? There was no clear provision for it under the articles of the constitution. So they had to make an interpretation. Both the EC and the government may do it on mutual agreement.

This time, they will probably end the caretaker roles and ask the senate to appoint a new PM and although the senate have the right to re-appoint Yingluck, how many of you think they would do such a stupid thing under the current circumstances? I can see a lot of PTP not being re-appointed to caretaker cabinet positions either.

There are no MPs at the moment, they only need a cabinet as ministers to keep the country rolling, this is not a hard task to appoint a new PM and entire cabinet.

My fingers are crossed.

[StealthEnergiser]

It is quite simple....... The constitutional court has the ultimate say on the interpretation of the constitution.

They are the highest court in the land, and they are its keepers, and how they interpret the constitution, no matter what else... It is binding by law and can not be over-ridden.

No matter how many grey areas there are. They have the only and final say. It is as simple as that.

Remember when the EC went to the C Court and asked for an interpretation on postponing the election? There was no clear provision for it under the articles of the constitution. So they had to make an interpretation. Both the EC and the government may do it on mutual agreement.

This time, they will probably end the caretaker roles and ask the senate to appoint a new PM and although the senate have the right to re-appoint Yingluck, how many of you think they would do such a stupid thing under the current circumstances? I can see a lot of PTP not being re-appointed to caretaker cabinet positions either.

There are no MPs at the moment, they only need a cabinet as ministers to keep the country rolling, this is not a hard task to appoint a new PM and entire cabinet.

My fingers are crossed.

Full agree with you this looks the only sensible solution , how long do you think it would take to appoint a new Pm ?

Edited March 5, 2014 by StealthEnergiser

[PepperMe]

What does article 7 actually say?

"Section 7. Whenever no provision under this Constitution is applicable to any case, it shall be decided in accordance with the constitutional practice in the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of the State."

Now, "the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of the State" is merely the long-winded definition of the Thai constitutional monarchy, so is just one long compound noun defined in section 2.

The phrase 'constitutional practice" is not defined, but we must assume means those sections that define rights and obligations without defining specific actions - and as we are witnessing, there are many such 'black holes' in the document.

So, section 7 says: if the Constitution does not tell you what to do, do whatever you want, so long as it is not prohibited.

The idea that the President of the Senate can select an interim Prime Minister is not written anywhere but is consistent with our simplified definition of section 7. The only tiny problem is that the Constitution explicitly states that a PM must also be an MP.

So perhaps our esteemed chief justice would interpret section 7 as saying: if the Constitution does not tell you what to do, do whatever you want, so long as it is not prohibited.

And remember, this is not a judicial coup; nope, not at all.

BTW I have always said that, given the House was not going to be able to convene, the Senate would eventually select a new Council of Ministers, but how are they going to ignore the requirement of the PM? I'm sure a carefully worded decree can get around anything, but it also has to overcome the decree itself being potentially unconstitutional! Who wrote this crappy constitution?! Don't ask.

Question is, which MPs? Can't be from the Feb 2 election as they haven't been sworn in. So, must be from the previous admin. But haven't they lost their status after 30 days like the PM?

They have indeed lost their status.

The council of members only consists of 21 cabinet ministers and 1 prime minister in a caretaker role.

When parliament was dissolved by Yingluck, there was no parliament and so no 'members of parliament' most of those MPs became nothing other than party members. Only the cabinet ministers hold their status as 'caretaker ministers'.

So really they only need to appoint 22 ministers.... Not a biggie.

[JesseFrank]

Lets hear what ying Luck says.

Read Yingluck's comment below .

I know it was a long read, but do you think she has a point ?

[PepperMe]

It is quite simple....... The constitutional court has the ultimate say on the interpretation of the constitution.

They are the highest court in the land, and they are its keepers, and how they interpret the constitution, no matter what else... It is binding by law and can not be over-ridden.

No matter how many grey areas there are. They have the only and final say. It is as simple as that.

Remember when the EC went to the C Court and asked for an interpretation on postponing the election? There was no clear provision for it under the articles of the constitution. So they had to make an interpretation. Both the EC and the government may do it on mutual agreement.

This time, they will probably end the caretaker roles and ask the senate to appoint a new PM and although the senate have the right to re-appoint Yingluck, how many of you think they would do such a stupid thing under the current circumstances? I can see a lot of PTP not being re-appointed to caretaker cabinet positions either.

There are no MPs at the moment, they only need a cabinet as ministers to keep the country rolling, this is not a hard task to appoint a new PM and entire cabinet.

My fingers are crossed.

Full agree with you this looks the only sensible solution , how long do you think it would take to appoint a new Pm ?

I would say that they will make the decision this week, and the senate will appoint the successor(s) by early next week. The PM will possibly be appointed almost immediately by emergency meeting of the senate. The rest of the cabinet probably by next week, like I said earlier. They will likely need to debate the cabinet positions. Maybe they will largely stay the same with the likes of Churapong, Chalerm and a few other ministers who have pushed their neck out too far over the past months, or showed complete negligence in their work.

Edited March 5, 2014 by PepperMe

[djjamie]

What does article 7 actually say?

"Section 7. Whenever no provision under this Constitution is applicable to any case, it shall be decided in accordance with the constitutional practice in the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of the State."

Now, "the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of the State" is merely the long-winded definition of the Thai constitutional monarchy, so is just one long compound noun defined in section 2.

The phrase 'constitutional practice" is not defined, but we must assume means those sections that define rights and obligations without defining specific actions - and as we are witnessing, there are many such 'black holes' in the document.

So, section 7 says: if the Constitution does not tell you what to do, do whatever you want, so long as it is not prohibited.

The idea that the President of the Senate can select an interim Prime Minister is not written anywhere but is consistent with our simplified definition of section 7. The only tiny problem is that the Constitution explicitly states that a PM must also be an MP.

So perhaps our esteemed chief justice would interpret section 7 as saying: if the Constitution does not tell you what to do, do whatever you want, so long as it is not prohibited.

And remember, this is not a judicial coup; nope, not at all.

BTW I have always said that, given the House was not going to be able to convene, the Senate would eventually select a new Council of Ministers, but how are they going to ignore the requirement of the PM? I'm sure a carefully worded decree can get around anything, but it also has to overcome the decree itself being potentially unconstitutional! Who wrote this crappy constitution?! Don't ask.

Who voted for this constitution…The majority!!!

[Costas2008]

smovi57, on 05 Mar 2014 - 08:55, said:

Lets hear what ying Luck says.

Shhhhhhh.......at the moment she is consulting her brother.

It will be a long telephone call, as she will be crying and cursing him for putting her in this mess.

Eventually somebody will write for her an answer in her Facebook.

[fab4]

djjamie, on 05 Mar 2014 - 09:23, said:

focus27, on 05 Mar 2014 - 08:37, said:

What does article 7 actually say?

"Section 7. Whenever no provision under this Constitution is applicable to any case, it shall be decided in accordance with the constitutional practice in the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of the State."

Now, "the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of the State" is merely the long-winded definition of the Thai constitutional monarchy, so is just one long compound noun defined in section 2.

The phrase 'constitutional practice" is not defined, but we must assume means those sections that define rights and obligations without defining specific actions - and as we are witnessing, there are many such 'black holes' in the document.

So, section 7 says: if the Constitution does not tell you what to do, do whatever you want, so long as it is not prohibited.

The idea that the President of the Senate can select an interim Prime Minister is not written anywhere but is consistent with our simplified definition of section 7. The only tiny problem is that the Constitution explicitly states that a PM must also be an MP.

So perhaps our esteemed chief justice would interpret section 7 as saying: if the Constitution does not tell you what to do, do whatever you want, so long as it is not prohibited.

And remember, this is not a judicial coup; nope, not at all.

BTW I have always said that, given the House was not going to be able to convene, the Senate would eventually select a new Council of Ministers, but how are they going to ignore the requirement of the PM? I'm sure a carefully worded decree can get around anything, but it also has to overcome the decree itself being potentially unconstitutional! Who wrote this crappy constitution?! Don't ask.

Who voted for this constitution…The majority!!!

As abhisit would say "but was it a free and fair vote"?

[kikoman]

According to this mornings newspaper That I am not allowed to quote, The EC states that the government has a time limit to repay the 20 billion baht loan through its rice sales, that date was May 31, and the EC believes the care taker government will still be in power till then!

Cheers

[rametindallas]

If Yingluck or some other Thaksin proxy is not named PM, Dr. Thaksin is going to have a conniption fit. http://www.wisegeek.org/what-is-a-conniption-fit.htm

[whybother]

What does article 7 actually say?

"Section 7. Whenever no provision under this Constitution is applicable to any case, it shall be decided in accordance with the constitutional practice in the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of the State."

Now, "the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of the State" is merely the long-winded definition of the Thai constitutional monarchy, so is just one long compound noun defined in section 2.

The phrase 'constitutional practice" is not defined, but we must assume means those sections that define rights and obligations without defining specific actions - and as we are witnessing, there are many such 'black holes' in the document.

So, section 7 says: if the Constitution does not tell you what to do, do whatever you want, so long as it is not prohibited.

The idea that the President of the Senate can select an interim Prime Minister is not written anywhere but is consistent with our simplified definition of section 7. The only tiny problem is that the Constitution explicitly states that a PM must also be an MP.

So perhaps our esteemed chief justice would interpret section 7 as saying: if the Constitution does not tell you what to do, do whatever you want, so long as it is not prohibited.

And remember, this is not a judicial coup; nope, not at all.

BTW I have always said that, given the House was not going to be able to convene, the Senate would eventually select a new Council of Ministers, but how are they going to ignore the requirement of the PM? I'm sure a carefully worded decree can get around anything, but it also has to overcome the decree itself being potentially unconstitutional! Who wrote this crappy constitution?! Don't ask.

"Who wrote this crappy constitution?"

Most of it was written by "the people" in 1997.

Sent from my phone ...

[StealthEnergiser]

It is quite simple....... The constitutional court has the ultimate say on the interpretation of the constitution.

They are the highest court in the land, and they are its keepers, and how they interpret the constitution, no matter what else... It is binding by law and can not be over-ridden.

No matter how many grey areas there are. They have the only and final say. It is as simple as that.

Remember when the EC went to the C Court and asked for an interpretation on postponing the election? There was no clear provision for it under the articles of the constitution. So they had to make an interpretation. Both the EC and the government may do it on mutual agreement.

This time, they will probably end the caretaker roles and ask the senate to appoint a new PM and although the senate have the right to re-appoint Yingluck, how many of you think they would do such a stupid thing under the current circumstances? I can see a lot of PTP not being re-appointed to caretaker cabinet positions either.

There are no MPs at the moment, they only need a cabinet as ministers to keep the country rolling, this is not a hard task to appoint a new PM and entire cabinet.

My fingers are crossed.

Full agree with you this looks the only sensible solution , how long do you think it would take to appoint a new Pm ?

I would say that they will make the decision this week, and the senate will appoint the successor(s) by early next week. The PM will possibly be appointed almost immediately by emergency meeting of the senate. The rest of the cabinet probably by next week, like I said earlier. They will likely need to debate the cabinet positions. Maybe they will largely stay the same with the likes of Churapong, Chalerm and a few other ministers who have pushed their neck out too far over the past months, or showed complete negligence in their work.

some interesting comments on this page https://www.facebook.com/rajprasong?ref=ts

[ThailandNoob]

What does article 7 actually say?

"Section 7. Whenever no provision under this Constitution is applicable to any case, it shall be decided in accordance with the constitutional practice in the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of the State."

Now, "the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of the State" is merely the long-winded definition of the Thai constitutional monarchy, so is just one long compound noun defined in section 2.

The phrase 'constitutional practice" is not defined, but we must assume means those sections that define rights and obligations without defining specific actions - and as we are witnessing, there are many such 'black holes' in the document.

So, section 7 says: if the Constitution does not tell you what to do, do whatever you want, so long as it is not prohibited.

The idea that the President of the Senate can select an interim Prime Minister is not written anywhere but is consistent with our simplified definition of section 7. The only tiny problem is that the Constitution explicitly states that a PM must also be an MP.

So perhaps our esteemed chief justice would interpret section 7 as saying: if the Constitution does not tell you what to do, do whatever you want, so long as it is not prohibited.

And remember, this is not a judicial coup; nope, not at all.

BTW I have always said that, given the House was not going to be able to convene, the Senate would eventually select a new Council of Ministers, but how are they going to ignore the requirement of the PM? I'm sure a carefully worded decree can get around anything, but it also has to overcome the decree itself being potentially unconstitutional! Who wrote this crappy constitution?! Don't ask.

Who voted for this constitution…The majority!!!

Given it as a take it or leave it proposal by the coup makers!!!

Sent from my IS11T using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[jonclark]

According to this mornings newspaper That I am not allowed to quote, The EC states that the government has a time limit to repay the 20 billion baht loan through its rice sales, that date was May 31, and the EC believes the care taker government will still be in power till then!

Cheers

The government is a public body - not PTP, so whether PTP or other appointed members, or my dog are in the government, the government is still bound by the legal agreements that the previous personal that made up the government then made.

The statement by the EC should not be interpreted as you have outlined kiloman, it is not as an endorsement of PTP being in government as it currently is. It is the green light for the government (the public body) repaying back the debt on said date, not PTP.

See the difference?

[northernjohn]

What does article 7 actually say?

"Section 7. Whenever no provision under this Constitution is applicable to any case, it shall be decided in accordance with the constitutional practice in the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of the State."

Now, "the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of the State" is merely the long-winded definition of the Thai constitutional monarchy, so is just one long compound noun defined in section 2.

The phrase 'constitutional practice" is not defined, but we must assume means those sections that define rights and obligations without defining specific actions - and as we are witnessing, there are many such 'black holes' in the document.

So, section 7 says: if the Constitution does not tell you what to do, do whatever you want, so long as it is not prohibited.

The idea that the President of the Senate can select an interim Prime Minister is not written anywhere but is consistent with our simplified definition of section 7. The only tiny problem is that the Constitution explicitly states that a PM must also be an MP.

So perhaps our esteemed chief justice would interpret section 7 as saying: if the Constitution does not tell you what to do, do whatever you want, so long as it is not prohibited.

And remember, this is not a judicial coup; nope, not at all.

BTW I have always said that, given the House was not going to be able to convene, the Senate would eventually select a new Council of Ministers, but how are they going to ignore the requirement of the PM? I'm sure a carefully worded decree can get around anything, but it also has to overcome the decree itself being potentially unconstitutional! Who wrote this crappy constitution?! Don't ask.

Question is, which MPs? Can't be from the Feb 2 election as they haven't been sworn in. So, must be from the previous admin. But haven't they lost their status after 30 days like the PM?

They have indeed lost their status.

The council of members only consists of 21 cabinet ministers and 1 prime minister in a caretaker role.

When parliament was dissolved by Yingluck, there was no parliament and so no 'members of parliament' most of those MPs became nothing other than party members. Only the cabinet ministers hold their status as 'caretaker ministers'.

So really they only need to appoint 22 ministers.... Not a biggie.

Question is are they still receiving their pay check?

[Crushdepth]

According to this mornings newspaper That I am not allowed to quote, The EC states that the government has a time limit to repay the 20 billion baht loan through its rice sales, that date was May 31, and the EC believes the care taker government will still be in power till then!

Cheers

Because the election still isn't complete.

[northernjohn]

What does article 7 actually say?

"Section 7. Whenever no provision under this Constitution is applicable to any case, it shall be decided in accordance with the constitutional practice in the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of the State."

Now, "the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of the State" is merely the long-winded definition of the Thai constitutional monarchy, so is just one long compound noun defined in section 2.

The phrase 'constitutional practice" is not defined, but we must assume means those sections that define rights and obligations without defining specific actions - and as we are witnessing, there are many such 'black holes' in the document.

So, section 7 says: if the Constitution does not tell you what to do, do whatever you want, so long as it is not prohibited.

The idea that the President of the Senate can select an interim Prime Minister is not written anywhere but is consistent with our simplified definition of section 7. The only tiny problem is that the Constitution explicitly states that a PM must also be an MP.

So perhaps our esteemed chief justice would interpret section 7 as saying: if the Constitution does not tell you what to do, do whatever you want, so long as it is not prohibited.

And remember, this is not a judicial coup; nope, not at all.

BTW I have always said that, given the House was not going to be able to convene, the Senate would eventually select a new Council of Ministers, but how are they going to ignore the requirement of the PM? I'm sure a carefully worded decree can get around anything, but it also has to overcome the decree itself being potentially unconstitutional! Who wrote this crappy constitution?! Don't ask.

"Who wrote this crappy constitution?"

Most of it was written by "the people" in 1997.

Sent from my phone ...

Yes and it was touched up by the army.

Suthep is seeking to get a clear and precise constitution to answer these questions and put a stop to corruption. As much as can be stopped. This can not be done by a government who is corrupt in the first place.

After such a constitution is in place call for elections. It would be interesting to see who chooses not to run with out the easy access to the government treasury. On the other hand it would make it easier for people to run as vote buying would cease. A big fine to those accepting it and jail to those offering it.

Sounds like a plan to me.

[gunny3000]

If PTP and Yingluck are thrown-out, what would be the repercussions? Surely the happy and non-happy Rice Farmer/Red Shirts will dispute this, as even the un-happy Rice Farmers have some chance of the rice pay-out? No?

[seajae]

well we can only hope, with any luck we will have a new pm, one that isnt a relative of box face and an arrest warrant for him will be issued and his passport cancelled(after 2 years). Then we can have arrest warrants issued for yl, chalerm,tarit and co plus Thailand can start its recovery from the ptp corruption. Might be a long bow but it is nice to think it will happen. As for the reds, well they have cut their own throats with all their crap, people will pay them back I am sure and without box face paying them they will collapse.

[PepperMe]

According to this mornings newspaper That I am not allowed to quote, The EC states that the government has a time limit to repay the 20 billion baht loan through its rice sales, that date was May 31, and the EC believes the care taker government will still be in power till then!

Cheers

The government is a public body - not PTP, so whether PTP or other appointed members, or my dog are in the government, the government is still bound by the legal agreements that the previous personal that made up the government then made.

The statement by the EC should not be interpreted as you have outlined kiloman, it is not as an endorsement of PTP being in government as it currently is. It is the green light for the government (the public body) repaying back the debt on said date, not PTP.

See the difference?

Yes... I have noticed that Kikoman needs serious education on basic principles of politics.

[PepperMe]

If PTP and Yingluck are thrown-out, what would be the repercussions? Surely the happy and non-happy Rice Farmer/Red Shirts will dispute this, as even the un-happy Rice Farmers have some chance of the rice pay-out? No?

The rice farmers will have a much better chance of being paid via an interim government by order of an emergency ruling from the cons court. The cons court will never sanction the extra 110 billion outstanding borrowing to this barrel of <deleted> of a government.

A neutral government, maybe.

If this happens, then I can see the farmers never voting for PTP ever again (if they exist after this has all blown over).

[BlueNoseCodger]

What does article 7 actually say?

"Section 7. Whenever no provision under this Constitution is applicable to any case, it shall be decided in accordance with the constitutional practice in the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of the State."

Now, "the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of the State" is merely the long-winded definition of the Thai constitutional monarchy, so is just one long compound noun defined in section 2.

The phrase 'constitutional practice" is not defined, but we must assume means those sections that define rights and obligations without defining specific actions - and as we are witnessing, there are many such 'black holes' in the document.

So, section 7 says: if the Constitution does not tell you what to do, do whatever you want, so long as it is not prohibited.

The idea that the President of the Senate can select an interim Prime Minister is not written anywhere but is consistent with our simplified definition of section 7. The only tiny problem is that the Constitution explicitly states that a PM must also be an MP.

So perhaps our esteemed chief justice would interpret section 7 as saying: if the Constitution does not tell you what to do, do whatever you want, so long as it is not prohibited.

And remember, this is not a judicial coup; nope, not at all.

BTW I have always said that, given the House was not going to be able to convene, the Senate would eventually select a new Council of Ministers, but how are they going to ignore the requirement of the PM? I'm sure a carefully worded decree can get around anything, but it also has to overcome the decree itself being potentially unconstitutional! Who wrote this crappy constitution?! Don't ask.

Who voted for this constitution…The majority!!!

We call that 'constitution vote' a 'Hobson's choice'.

A Hobson's choice is a free choice in which only one option is offered. As a person may refuse to take that option, the choice is therefore between taking the option or not; "take it or leave it". The phrase is said to originate with Thomas Hobson (1544–1631), a livery stable owner in Cambridge, England. To rotate the use of his horses, he offered customers the choice of either taking the horse in the stall nearest the door or taking none at all.

Worse than a Hobson's choice, was the crime they created if you criticized the proposed constitution. So faults in the constitution couldn't even be discussed openly.

So it badly tilted the Senate in favor of the elite and their party the 'Democrats', and in turn the bodies of state populated by the Senate too became distorted and corrupt in favor of the elite and the 'Democrats'.

Edited March 5, 2014 by BlueNoseCodger

[aussieinthailand]

What does article 7 actually say?

"Section 7. Whenever no provision under this Constitution is applicable to any case, it shall be decided in accordance with the constitutional practice in the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of the State."

Now, "the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of the State" is merely the long-winded definition of the Thai constitutional monarchy, so is just one long compound noun defined in section 2.

The phrase 'constitutional practice" is not defined, but we must assume means those sections that define rights and obligations without defining specific actions - and as we are witnessing, there are many such 'black holes' in the document.

So, section 7 says: if the Constitution does not tell you what to do, do whatever you want, so long as it is not prohibited.

The idea that the President of the Senate can select an interim Prime Minister is not written anywhere but is consistent with our simplified definition of section 7. The only tiny problem is that the Constitution explicitly states that a PM must also be an MP.

So perhaps our esteemed chief justice would interpret section 7 as saying: if the Constitution does not tell you what to do, do whatever you want, so long as it is not prohibited.

And remember, this is not a judicial coup; nope, not at all.

BTW I have always said that, given the House was not going to be able to convene, the Senate would eventually select a new Council of Ministers, but how are they going to ignore the requirement of the PM? I'm sure a carefully worded decree can get around anything, but it also has to overcome the decree itself being potentially unconstitutional! Who wrote this crappy constitution?! Don't ask.

Who voted for this constitution…The majority!!!

UMMM, I thought it was put together by the military after the last coup? so not much in the way of voting, but I could be mistaken?

Then Mark was given the PM gig on a platter all wrapped up in a nice little yellow we don't respect your vote, and Mark had plenty of time for reforms but choose not to, and now crying about needing reforms, <deleted>? and the courts will do and interpret as they see fit and as long as no one' looking, TIT

[tezzainoz]

If this can not happen

I would like to see

3 Debates on Nation TV in Thailand

1) Yingluck Vs Abhisit Vejjajiva 1 on 1

2) Yingluck Vs Abhisit Vejjajiva answer questions by the Thai public

3) a member of each party to stand for new elections with their policies, and 3 selected member of different media to ask the questions

after this an election

But would this open Pandoras Box for both sides on politics