"Enlightened jurists" or ill-informed lecturers?
A group of university law lecturers who call themselves "enlightened jurists" recently called on MPs who voted for an all-elected Senate to ignore the Constitutional Court's ruling that struck down that amendment.
The lecturers claimed the ruling was unconstitutional because the court had no authority in this case, since charter amendments are not aimed at ousting a democratically elected regime.
According to the Constitution, the Senate’s duty is to scrutinise laws initiated by the Lower House. Thus the Senate, to be practical and independent of any political influence, should be partly comprised of various knowledgeable professionals.
For example, architects and engineers are better equipped to scrutinise projects concerning infrastructure. Educators are better qualified to reviews laws on schooling, and so forth.
Hence, for MPs and senators to form an all-elected Senate would be tantamount to destroying the two-chamber system.
Are these “enlightened jurists” really what their name declares?
Vint Chavala
Lamphun
