Posted on 05/15/2018 6:32:45 AM PDT by cll
Hurricane María provides another reason why federal courts could revisit Harris and Califano. The hurricane blew away the mainland’s lack of awareness regarding the inequality that United States citizens suffer just for residing in Puerto Rico. As First Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Juan R. Torruella points out in the Harvard Law Review Forum, “[i]f there is a silver lining to be found within the catastrophic impact of Hurricane María on the Island of Puerto Rico, it is that the barrage of news generated by that unfortunate event has served to inform the rest of the nation that Puerto Rico is a ‘part of the United States’ and that its residents are ‘citizens of the United States.’” Juan R. Torruella, Why Puerto Rico Does Not Need Further Experimentation with Its Future: A Reply to the Notion of “Territorial Federalism,” 131 Harv. L. Rev. F. 65, 67 (2018). This newfound awareness could trigger juridical change as other American citizens learn of the limits imposed on their rights due to anachronistic historical and geographical quirks dating to precedents established by the same Supreme Court that decided Plessy.
~ snip ~
Califano and Harris, and the ensuing forty years of discrimination upheld under rational basis review, may be ripe for reconsideration. “Bureaucratic inertia, combined with the powerlessness and distance of the territories” has given this discriminatory treatment a lifespan that approaches Plessy’s. Leibowitz, Defining Status, supra, at 31. But the reality is that these cases were decided “without benefit of briefing or argument,” as Justice Marshall warned, or worse, without even the benefit of the government of Puerto Rico participating in the case and being heard. Harris, 446 U.S. at 654 (Marshall, J., dissenting). Circumstances surrounding Puerto Rico have changed. There is increased national awareness of its existence and political consensus against its disparate treatment. As a result, federal courts could now conclude that heightened scrutiny is “a proposition [that] surely warrants [their] full attention,” potentially leading to an adverse result for the United States. Id.; see also Hernández-Colón, The Evolution, supra, at 606 (“Elemental principles of fairness and equal protection demand that such distinctions drawn by Congress in the application of federal programs to Puerto Rico and other nonstate areas should be subject to strict scrutiny.”).
let me save the usual suspects some time by advancing their gut objections without reading:
Cut them leeches loose!
Give them independence!
“In my opinion, Congress has no existence and can exercise no authority outside of the Constitution. Still less is it true that Congress can deal with new territories just as other nations have done or may do with their new territories. This nation is under the control of a written constitution, the supreme law of the land and the only source of the powers which our government, or any branch or officer of it, may exert at any time or at any place. Monarchical and despotic governments, unrestrained by written constitutions, may do with newly acquired territories what this government may not do consistently with our fundamental law. To say otherwise is to concede that Congress may, by action taken outside of the Constitution, engraft upon our republican institutions a colonial system such as exists under monarchical governments. Surely such a result was never contemplated by the fathers of the Constitution. If that instrument had contained a word suggesting the possibility of a result of that character it would never have been adopted by the people of the United States. The idea that this country may acquire territories anywhere upon the earth, by conquest or treaty, and hold them as mere colonies or provinces,the people inhabiting them to enjoy only such rights as Congress chooses to accord to them,is wholly inconsistent with the spirit and genius, as well as with the words, of the Constitution”. - Justice John Harlan, dissenting in the Insular Cases, 1901)
This “federal” judge appears mainly interested in increasing taxpayer money going to Puerto Rico. It’s long past time to cut (even if involuntarily on PR’s part) Puerto Rico loose and unilaterally grant it FULL INDEPENDENCE.
I forgot:
“Return them to Spain, dammit!”
The Uniparty has already decided for US that PR will become the 51st state, whether the US citizens like it or not.
It was Cantor’s vote for statehood that made me determined to oust him from office.
If that doesn’t happen real soon you might as well tear up the Treaty of Paris of 1898. It is a real shame that the United States insists on continuing to have what in essence is an apartheid system, where its citizens, whether island or mainland born, are discriminated against merely because of their geographical location.
Does anybody read?
“...discriminated against ...”
****************************
Don’t forget “discriminated FOR” also...(e.g., no federal income tax on PR earnings). Sorry, cut PR loose. The last thing we need is two more guaranteed ‘RAT Senators in perpetuity; a possibility that has mainland ‘RATS salivating.
“The last thing we need is two more guaranteed ‘RAT Senators in perpetuity...”
Why do you assume that? There is no Democrat v. Republican parties or tradition in Puerto Rico. Those seats are up for grabs by any of the two.
Why do you assume {= make an A$$ out of U & Me} that? There is no Democrat v. Republican parties or tradition in Puerto Rico.
Seeing how my father & Grand Father born & raised in Puerto Rico, I can tell you: ‘RAT Senators in perpetuity...” will BITE you where you sit, make no mistake(s).
There is no English language tradition in PR, either.
Despite the best efforts of the Bush League Republicans, The USA is still an English speaking country.
We should have given PR independence decades ago.
“There is no English language tradition in PR, either”
What? There’s plenty of English language tradition here. English is, in fact, an official language, unlike in most U.S. jurisdictions.
“We should have given PR independence decades ago”
How do you “give” independence, exactly?
Same way we did with most of the territories acquired from Spain.
Puerto Rico statehood = ‘RAT US Senators In perpetuity. That’s not an unfounded assumption but is instead a rational inference. Below is a link to information on PR’s ACTUAL voting experience in the 2016 presidential primaries. Voting in the ‘RAT primary was OVER two times greater than voting in the Republican primary.
And, in the Republican primary, Trump got only 13% of the vote; little Marco got 70%. MAGA doesn’t resonate with many Puerto Rico residents.
Like I said, PUERTO RICO STATEHOOD = two additional ‘RAT U.S. Senators in perpetuity AND MORE ‘RAT ELECTORAL VOTES IN PERPETUITY. I do understand why you would prefer that we don’t recognize that TRUTH.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_primaries_in_Puerto_Rico,_2016
Most? The two territories that were given independence - Cuba and the Philippines - were not populated by U.S. Citizens, as Puerto Rico is and has been since 1917.
Oh, please. The national party primaries in Puerto Rico are a joke, with very scant participation as compared to our general elections, with well over 80% turnout each time. the democrat and republican primaries here are conducted by and for party hacks, who are just looking for a ride to the conventions. The general population does not participate.
First remove all vestige of “civil law” from the legal system. Then PR can succeed as either a State or independently. And, of course, if it wants to be a state it will have to quit conducting it’s courts in Spanish LOL!
This is basic, fundamental.
I agree that having “insular” areas is a strain on the Constitution.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.