Yoon’s gambit failed. Severe consequences are required to re-establish confidence in order. God help the people of Korea if the consequences are not enough to satisfy justice in their eyes. They don’t deserve to have their lives be treated by their elected leaders like a K-Drama. God bless you all.
😅In the process of transition from military rule to civilian rule in 1987, the constitution of Korea was amended in order to ensure that the power of president is thoroughly checked by the legislature. The amendment actually deprived the president of almost all the power, esoecially the power to check the legislature. Under this amended constitution, a president can become a lame duck soon after his or her inauguration, especially when the opposition party is bigger than the ruling party. President Yoon Seok-Yeol, as a lame duck, had to face not just a hostile leftist oppostion party but also his own party which also became a critic when Han Dong-Hoon came as as the the ruling party chair. Yoon, a de-facto lame duck, became isolated and deprived of the momentum for pushing forward his reform agendas.This situation might have nourished his thoughts about a martial law, as a possible breakthrough. But, it might have been better for him to have given second thoughts about a martial law before declaring it.
Fantastic discussion covering the ROK situation! Fantastic experts and perspectives. Is there an audio version of this podcast for those of us who commute? 😂😂 thanks again!
The first proclamation following the martial law prohibits all political activities of National Assembly members. Currently, South Korea operates under the Sixth Republic's constitutional framework. In the past, there was a power to dissolve the National Assembly, but that authority no longer resides with the president. The issue at hand is the conflict between this first proclamation and the authority to lift martial law.
I disagree with Tim's assessment/characterizations on several important aspects. 1) It's likely that President in place Han will not appoint 3 additional constitutional judges. This is a bit of grey area, but there is a precedent where when President Park was impeached President in place Hwang was not able to appoint constitutional judge for a couple of reasons a) President in place is supposed to continue the policies of the elected President, so he can not appoint someone Yoon will not appoint b) Congress plays the role of the prosecutor, so for these specific appointments that Congress recommends, it would be tantamount to prosecutor appointing judges which is against the principle of fair trial. 2) Majority of constitutional scholars have come out and said that Yoon's actions do not justify impeachment legally. The primary reason is President as top executive is entitled to actions of chief executive according to Trump versus US (2024) which gives very high degree of immunity to executive interpretation of law (if you are strict about this then President can only do what is strictly in the law). Therefore, President is impeachable only for insurrection (내란) or treason (외환). Korean law has very strict requirements for insurrection and there are a number of clear precedents. Yoon's actions are very mild compared to these standards. 3) Constitutional court proceedings are that of criminal rather than civil court so the evidences are important. The impeachment occurred without any real investigation, so it is just the impeachment resolution and bunch of newspaper articles. Prosecution will have very little substance to back its case. In President Park's impeachment in comparison had months of lead up where a number of journalistic investigations occurred. That said, some scholars believe constitutional court rulings are influenced heavily by people opinion, so this is a challenge that Yoon will have to overcome. Opinions in Korea are sharply divided, so I suggest getting opinions from both sides to ensure that you are well informed. No offense to Tim, but he seems center left and they typically are not well informed on factual or legal matters. Tim, Camp David was attended by Biden, Yoon and Kishida. Not Ishiba.
No offense to you but you seem to be far right and delusional at that 😂 For anyone reading w/o context: NO, these kinds of comments are the ones that hurt the most - it's not the bias, it's the complete disconnect with reality. 1. PM Han literally has no choice. The Constitutional Court and the nominees for judges said that the acting president has the authority to appoint on 12/18. Yes, he can choose not to appoint but he himself will be impeached both by the National Assembly and the court of public opinion. 2. "Majority of constitutional scholars... do not justify impeachment legally." LMAO I'm not even going to comment on this. What world are you living in? 3. "... evidences are important." "Prosecution will have very little substance to back its case." My guy, troops stormed the National Assembly and the NEC and it was broadcast LIVE. The declaration itself is unconstitutional. Testimonies are coming out left and right. "Opinions in Korea are sharply divided"? His approval ratings are in the 10% range and near 80% of the country polled in support of impeachment, let alone immediate arrest. He doesn't even have his own attorneys at the moment bc law firms are turning him down. What a joke of a comment man. Don't come out here pretending you're representing Korea. Seriously, it's one thing to have your own political views but this was neither a right or left issue. Yoon literally attempted a self coup and you're here saying his actions "are very mild." Wake up.
I believe the basis for the first proclamation under martial law, which restricts all political activities of National Assembly members, is that if there is evidence of election fraud, then at least Lee Jae-myung and the opposition party should not hold the qualifications to be lawmakers. Therefore, as President Yoon stated, it is justified to prohibit their political activities from this point onward.
France, the UK, and Japan all have the power to dissolve their parliaments. If there is no such power, how can we prevent the legislative branch, or the National Assembly, from abusing its authority? This is the core of the issue.
Yoon Seok-youl's goal wasn't merely to dissolve the National Assembly. Through martial law, he sought to deploy special forces to arrest and eliminate his political rivals, such as Lee Jae-myung and Han Dong-hoon. This fool, desperate to avoid prison, aimed to emulate figures like Zelensky and Netanyahu.
왜 한국은 없는지 생각을 해보고 말하길 바란다. 원래 있었는데 독재자들에 의해 3번 국회가 해산되었고, 수많은 사람들이 실종되었고 고문당했고 죽었다. 그래서 1987년에 국회 해산 조항이 삭제되었다. 한국은 한국이지 프랑스나 영국, 일본이 아니다. Please think about why Korea deleted that law. Parliament was dissolved three times by dictators, and many people went missing, tortured, and died. So, in 1987, the dissolution clause was removed. Korea is Korea, not France, the United Kingdom, or Japan.
In summary, the current constitution, which lacks the power to dissolve the National Assembly, is problematic. If lawmakers can request the lifting of martial law, how can we prevent the National Assembly from abusing its power or engaging in misconduct? This is the crux of the issue.
Yes, the 1987 constitution weakened the power of presidency and I believe this is due to the dictatorships that preceded. Korean parliament has never been one side dominated as today, so the stakeholders probably did not foresee that current situation. Currently it's fair to say that the legislature has far more power than executive. There is also the issue of election integrity where there are very convincing statistical arguments for election fraud. Coincidently, the National Election Commission is adamant about refusing any investigation.
Yoon’s gambit failed. Severe consequences are required to re-establish confidence in order. God help the people of Korea if the consequences are not enough to satisfy justice in their eyes. They don’t deserve to have their lives be treated by their elected leaders like a K-Drama. God bless you all.
😅In the process of transition from military rule to civilian rule in 1987, the constitution of Korea was amended in order to ensure that the power of president is thoroughly checked by the legislature. The amendment actually deprived the president of almost all the power, esoecially the power to check the legislature. Under this amended constitution, a president can become a lame duck soon after his or her inauguration, especially when the opposition party is bigger than the ruling party. President Yoon Seok-Yeol, as a lame duck, had to face not just a hostile leftist oppostion party but also his own party which also became a critic when Han Dong-Hoon came as as the the ruling party chair. Yoon, a de-facto lame duck, became isolated and deprived of the momentum for pushing forward his reform agendas.This situation might have nourished his thoughts about a martial law, as a possible breakthrough. But, it might have been better for him to have given second thoughts about a martial law before declaring it.
Fantastic discussion covering the ROK situation! Fantastic experts and perspectives. Is there an audio version of this podcast for those of us who commute? 😂😂 thanks again!
The first proclamation following the martial law prohibits all political activities of National Assembly members. Currently, South Korea operates under the Sixth Republic's constitutional framework. In the past, there was a power to dissolve the National Assembly, but that authority no longer resides with the president.
The issue at hand is the conflict between this first proclamation and the authority to lift martial law.
I disagree with Tim's assessment/characterizations on several important aspects.
1) It's likely that President in place Han will not appoint 3 additional constitutional judges. This is a bit of grey area, but there is a precedent where when President Park was impeached President in place Hwang was not able to appoint constitutional judge for a couple of reasons a) President in place is supposed to continue the policies of the elected President, so he can not appoint someone Yoon will not appoint b) Congress plays the role of the prosecutor, so for these specific appointments that Congress recommends, it would be tantamount to prosecutor appointing judges which is against the principle of fair trial.
2) Majority of constitutional scholars have come out and said that Yoon's actions do not justify impeachment legally. The primary reason is President as top executive is entitled to actions of chief executive according to Trump versus US (2024) which gives very high degree of immunity to executive interpretation of law (if you are strict about this then President can only do what is strictly in the law). Therefore, President is impeachable only for insurrection (내란) or treason (외환). Korean law has very strict requirements for insurrection and there are a number of clear precedents. Yoon's actions are very mild compared to these standards.
3) Constitutional court proceedings are that of criminal rather than civil court so the evidences are important. The impeachment occurred without any real investigation, so it is just the impeachment resolution and bunch of newspaper articles. Prosecution will have very little substance to back its case. In President Park's impeachment in comparison had months of lead up where a number of journalistic investigations occurred. That said, some scholars believe constitutional court rulings are influenced heavily by people opinion, so this is a challenge that Yoon will have to overcome.
Opinions in Korea are sharply divided, so I suggest getting opinions from both sides to ensure that you are well informed.
No offense to Tim, but he seems center left and they typically are not well informed on factual or legal matters.
Tim, Camp David was attended by Biden, Yoon and Kishida. Not Ishiba.
You’re wrong, mate!!
Opinions in Korea are divided with 80 to 20. 80% of Korean people disagreed your opinion.
No offense to you but you seem to be far right and delusional at that 😂
For anyone reading w/o context: NO, these kinds of comments are the ones that hurt the most - it's not the bias, it's the complete disconnect with reality.
1. PM Han literally has no choice. The Constitutional Court and the nominees for judges said that the acting president has the authority to appoint on 12/18. Yes, he can choose not to appoint but he himself will be impeached both by the National Assembly and the court of public opinion.
2. "Majority of constitutional scholars... do not justify impeachment legally." LMAO I'm not even going to comment on this. What world are you living in?
3. "... evidences are important." "Prosecution will have very little substance to back its case." My guy, troops stormed the National Assembly and the NEC and it was broadcast LIVE. The declaration itself is unconstitutional. Testimonies are coming out left and right. "Opinions in Korea are sharply divided"? His approval ratings are in the 10% range and near 80% of the country polled in support of impeachment, let alone immediate arrest. He doesn't even have his own attorneys at the moment bc law firms are turning him down.
What a joke of a comment man. Don't come out here pretending you're representing Korea. Seriously, it's one thing to have your own political views but this was neither a right or left issue. Yoon literally attempted a self coup and you're here saying his actions "are very mild."
Wake up.
I believe the basis for the first proclamation under martial law, which restricts all political activities of National Assembly members, is that if there is evidence of election fraud, then at least Lee Jae-myung and the opposition party should not hold the qualifications to be lawmakers. Therefore, as President Yoon stated, it is justified to prohibit their political activities from this point onward.
😊😊😊
France, the UK, and Japan all have the power to dissolve their parliaments. If there is no such power, how can we prevent the legislative branch, or the National Assembly, from abusing its authority? This is the core of the issue.
Yoon Seok-youl's goal wasn't merely to dissolve the National Assembly. Through martial law, he sought to deploy special forces to arrest and eliminate his political rivals, such as Lee Jae-myung and Han Dong-hoon. This fool, desperate to avoid prison, aimed to emulate figures like Zelensky and Netanyahu.
왜 한국은 없는지 생각을 해보고 말하길 바란다. 원래 있었는데 독재자들에 의해 3번 국회가 해산되었고, 수많은 사람들이 실종되었고 고문당했고 죽었다. 그래서 1987년에 국회 해산 조항이 삭제되었다. 한국은 한국이지 프랑스나 영국, 일본이 아니다.
Please think about why Korea deleted that law. Parliament was dissolved three times by dictators, and many people went missing, tortured, and died. So, in 1987, the dissolution clause was removed. Korea is Korea, not France, the United Kingdom, or Japan.
In summary, the current constitution, which lacks the power to dissolve the National Assembly, is problematic. If lawmakers can request the lifting of martial law, how can we prevent the National Assembly from abusing its power or engaging in misconduct? This is the crux of the issue.
Yes, the 1987 constitution weakened the power of presidency and I believe this is due to the dictatorships that preceded. Korean parliament has never been one side dominated as today, so the stakeholders probably did not foresee that current situation. Currently it's fair to say that the legislature has far more power than executive. There is also the issue of election integrity where there are very convincing statistical arguments for election fraud. Coincidently, the National Election Commission is adamant about refusing any investigation.
FYI, this is my short video clip for martial law ua-cam.com/video/uYubbehyi98/v-deo.htmlsi=sgURjiFmRqM_XZlE