The King Can Do No Wrong

There must be an institution (a parliament, a prime minister or a court) countersigning and be accountable for ‘his’ action. In fact in many country modern monarchy interpret the king or the queen’s action as merely ceremonial. The king can do no wrong, in Yud’s explanation, also can be interpreted as the king can do nothing. As his ceremonial action must be introduced, countersigned and be responsible for for by other parties under the constitution.  thus, it is also explained why, according to the 1992 constitution and other constitutions,  the king “shall be enthroned in a position of  revered worship and shall not be violated. No person shall expose the King to any sort of accusation or action.” The logic, according to Yud if the king do nothing (legally or politically), then the king cannot be exposed to any accusation. The government, the Parliament or the Court that countersign for the king, however, shall be subject to any action or accusation respectively.
The base line for this analysis was pre BE 2511 constitutions and post  2511 ones. The most extreme one that King Rama VII seemed not to prefer was issued in June BE 2475, one of the many aspects to control and balance the power was to limit his veto right to only seven days. After that, a law can be enacted even without his signature. Since then, the changes in constitutions on The King session reflected ambiguous changes that could contribute to less participation from the Parliament. Panelists discussed that the latest one drafted in  1997 by ‘people’s process’), which was said to be the most democratic constitution, was the one that the right can set new standards on “The King” in democratic constitution and they were passed to the 2550 one as well.