The Constitutional Court (again)

[Ink]

The Constitution does not allow authority for the court in exert its power over the Legislature, or vice versa.

The Constitution does not allow an individual or a political party to bring the matter before the court on issues of national security. It has to done through the Office of the Attorney General after such office has reviewed the grievances and see fit to take it up to the court.

For obvious reason, the Constitution allow the rights to keep check on such actions in the capacity of "an individual" and/or "a political party", not Parliament.

[Ink]

“The court can accept petitions directly as well as from the Attorney General, Pimol Thampitakpong, a spokesman for the Constitutional Court.”

Article 68 of the Constitution clearly states petitions are to be submitted to the Attorney General for review before the Attorney General forwards to the court. This step and/or procedure was discussed on June 18, 2007 at meeting number 27/2550 by the Constitutional Drafting Committee, and is on record on pages 6-8, 32-34, and 37 in which no mention of the court being able to accept petitions directly without having to go through the Attorney General was made. All discussion of this process made clear the involvement of the Attorney General only and not just any individual, political party, or anyone else.

Additionally, the Constitution Court itself has this step and/or procedure published on the court’s website as a matter of public record/information on page 3, section 6, paragraph 3, that petitions are to be submitted to the court by the Attorney General.

[disappoint]

Apparently the petition was submitted to the OAG and given to the CC. The OAG petition vetting process, apparently, is very time-consuming. This would have allowed the railroading of the amnesty bill, before the petition found its way to the CC. Therefore I see it as a good thing that the CC got involved - just to make sure that the mooted bill was/is constitutional.

This in and of itself is not a bad thing.

As a citizen I want to be ensured, beyond a reasonable doubt, that my representatives make sure that all the T's are crossed and the i's are dotted. That they enact legislation for the benefit of the ALL people of the Kingdom, not just the so-called 'majority' or of connected individuals. I wouldn't want the amnesty law to be arbitrarily letting-off and white-washing criminals. Would you??

[disappoint]

According to the Constitutional Court by way of Article 60, 69, and 70 the CC have full authority.

If any person or persons or political party have a problem with this they should present a petition to the Supreme Administrative Court to decide once and for all. It's a waste of money to have our esteemed legislators debate something that they know nothing of or haven't even read - let alone understand and to uphold the law of the land; when they don't even have democracy in their hearts.