U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor has recently visited Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands, where she has addressed civic groups, local judges and attorneys, and other public gatherings. See this Saipan Tribune article about the trip’s conclusion. This article, and other articles about the visit, imply that she is the first U.S. Supreme Court Justice to visit these U.S. territories while in office.
The U.S. is in violation of several international human rights agreements for refusing to let U.S. adult citizens who live in its possessions vote for President, as well as for denying them any voting representatives in the national legislature. By contrast, France and the Netherlands, the only other nations with populous overseas possessions, grant full voting rights in their national elections to residents of those places (“populous” in this context means a place with at least 70,000 residents).
Sotomayor’s roots are in Puerto Rico, so it is natural that she may be more interested in this voting rights issue than any other U.S. Supreme Court Justice. The U.S. Supreme Court has been rejecting all voting rights cases filed by residents of U.S. possessions for three decades, and there have been many such appeals, especially from Puerto Rico. Maybe that will change in the future. Thanks to How Appealing for the link. UPDATE: a Virgin Islands resident filed a constitutional complaint against the U.S. government on September 20, 2011, Michael Charles v U.S. Federal Election Commission, superior court of Virgin Islands, St. Thomas division, 505/2011. Thanks to Rick Hasen for the news of the Virgin Islands case.
All a ruse. She’s went there to pick up a forged long form copy of Obama’s birth certificate in Hawaii. She smuggled it back in for an “October surprise.”
There’s no end to what the brown types will do to take this country away from us white people.
@1 Go fall in an Icelandic volcano crater.
#1
Thank you for making your usual contribution.
Don’t feed the trolls! Racists and other idiots should not be responded to.
#4
Thank you for you suggestion.
Where is Demo Rep when you need him!
Sotomayor appointment, and all of her other BO appointed associate justice’s actions while at SCOTUS will be challenged as being void ab initio.
Yeah! Just think of it, NBCP! If we can undo the Obama presidency, every single American will be immediately three years younger, ab stupidio!
#8
Thank you yet again for making the views of yourself and your associates known.
9 –
I stand for America like you. We need to change the direction we’re heading in.
Overturning three years of Supreme Court decisions won’t do it but its a good start.
#2–That would be cruel against that poor volcano 🙂
And, to those who, like me, disagree with many decisions made by President Obama, the way to deal with it is beat him at the polls in November.
The guy was born in Hawaii, is a natural born US citizen, period. As an attorney I can tell you that the burden of proof belongs to those who claim Mr. Obama is not qualified to be President. He is presumed to comply with all the qualifications established in the Constitution. Also, in my humble opinion, it should be amended to allow naturalized Americans (that is, Americans by choice) to become president. This doesn’t mean they will automatically become president, they still have to go through the electoral process.
I got sidetracked. I was going to speak about how all US citizens, regardless of place of residence, should be able to participate in the election of the President.
Remember that all US citizens are affected by the President’s decisions. One big example is that the President has the power to send US troops into harm’s way, it does not matter if those US soldiers live in a state or a territory. Puerto Rico has patriotically borne its burden in every armed conflict since 1917. Likewise with the residents of the other territories. Guam, for instance, was attacked and occupied by Japanese troops in WWII.
The US is signatory of various treaties that guarantee the right to vote, but does not comply with them.
However, I am not sure if the courts can provide a remedy. It is up to Congress to act.
# 6 — Obvious ADULT options (regardless of all juvenile MORONS on this list) —
Uniform definition of Elector-Voter in ALL of the U.S.A. — including the occupied colony areas
OR
Independence for the occupied areas — i.e. being a part of a western Pacific Ocean regime for the Mariana Islands and/or an independent Puerto Rico.
How many dubious island *nation-states* south of the U.S.A. are there at the moment — i.e. the various ex- Brit, France, Holland, Spain, Portugal, etc. colonies ???
Somwhat amazed that the U.S.A. did NOT take control of ALL of the island regimes south of the U.S.A. from 1898 to 1945 — and combine them with Florida.
#12
again, sort them out
20% – 40% are “tourists” not children of former slaves or they are illegals — not US citizens for census purposes
over 95% of the remainder are nbc qualified
the current redistricting drill — nationally as well as in NYS — will provide the remedy for both constitutional nbc (natural born citizen) issue as well as reapportionment/removing many, many CA congressional seats in the required new census and reapportionment after the final segment of the nbc-less emperor’s new clothes POTUS/CINC Primary and General Election this year.
#11
So, why the need amend of the US Constitution? — the presumed law of this land — the noble experiment of a republican form of government created apart from the corruption of rotten boroughs of GB & constitutional monarchies of Europe. i.e. BO is not eligible to be POTUS/CINC nor is he eligible to nominate Sotomayor for SCOTUS appointment — or nominate and appoint Holder USAG for that matter.
Just (re)start to enforce the US Constitution, as well as the original intent of the 14th amendment — full natural born citizenship (including full nbc grandfathering of for former slaves and their children)
This in response to your: “As an attorney I can tell you that the burden of proof belongs to those who claim Mr. Obama is not qualified to be President. He is presumed to comply with all the qualifications established in the Constitution. Also, in my humble opinion, it should be amended to allow naturalized Americans (that is, Americans by choice) to become president”
14 –
You say “Tourists,” I say “brown types.”
We’re on the same page brother.
#14
“Alinsky’s tactics were often unorthodox. In Rules for Radicals Alinsky wrote, “[t]he job of the organizer is to maneuver and bait the establishment so that it will publicly attack him as a ‘dangerous enemy.'” According to Alinsky, “the hysterical instant reaction of the establishment [will] not only validate [the organizer’s] credentials of competency but also ensure automatic popular invitation.”[8] After organizing FIGHT (an acronym for Freedom, Independence, God, Honor, Today) in Rochester, New York, Alinsky once threatened to stage a “fart in” to disrupt the sensibilities of the city’s establishment at a Rochester Philharmonic concert. FIGHT members were to consume large quantities of baked beans after which, according to author Nicholas von Hoffman, “FIGHT’s increasingly gaseous music-loving members would hie themselves to the concert hall where they would sit expelling gaseous vapors with such noisy velocity as to compete with the woodwinds.”[9] Satisfied with the reaction to his threat, Alinsky would later threaten a “piss in” at Chicago O’Hare Airport. Alinsky planned to arrange for large numbers of well dressed African Americans to occupy the urinals and toilets at O’Hare for as long as it took to bring the city to the bargaining table. According to Alinsky, once again the threat alone was sufficient to produce results.[9]
Alinsky described his plans in 1972 to begin to organize the white middle class across America, and the necessity of that project. He believed that what President Richard Nixon and Vice-President Spiro Agnew called “The Silent Majority” was living in frustration and despair, worried about their future, and ripe for a turn to radical social change, to become politically-active citizens. He feared the middle class could be driven to a right-wing viewpoint, “making them ripe for the plucking by some guy on horseback promising a return to the vanished verities of yesterday.” His stated motive: “I love this goddamn country, and we’re going to take it back.”[4]
Alinsky’s own words, from his 1946 “Reveille for Radicals”,[10] capture his perspective, his motivation, and his style of engagement:
A People’s Organization is a conflict group, [and] this must be openly and fully recognized. Its sole reason in coming into being is to wage war against all evils which cause suffering and unhappiness. A People’s Organization is the banding together of large numbers of men and women to fight for those rights which insure a decent way of life. . . .
A People’s Organization is dedicated to an eternal war. It is a war against poverty, misery, delinquency, disease, injustice, hopelessness, despair, and unhappiness. They are basically the same issues for which nations have gone to war in almost every generation. . . . War is not an intellectual debate, and in the war against social evils there are no rules of fair play. . . .
A People’s Organization lives in a world of hard reality. It lives in the midst of smashing forces, dashing struggles, sweeping cross-currents, ripping passions, conflict, confusion, seeming chaos, the hot and the cold, the squalor and the drama, which people prosaically refer to as life and students describe as ‘society’.”
from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saul_Alinsky
re posted by natural born citizen party — a reformed (former) flaming politially correct liberal.
Juan Jose Nolla makes the most sense here.
Watergate and the 1972 election were really the beginning of the various POTUS elections to come including 2008 obama conspiracy planning including the formation of the (“major” parties totally controlled) NYS Bd of Elections and the infamous SCOTUS decision:
U.S. Supreme Court
Rosario v. Rockefeller, 410 U.S. 752 (1973)
Rosario v. Rockefeller
No. 71-1371
Argued December 13, 1972
Decided March 21, 1973
410 U.S. 752
Syllabus
Petitioners challenge the constitutionality of New York Election Law § 186, which requires a voter to enroll in the party of his choice at least 30 days before the general election in order to vote in the next party primary. Though eligible to enroll before the previous general election, petitioners failed to do so, and were therefore ineligible to vote in the 1972 primary. The Court of Appeals, reversing the District Court, upheld the New York scheme, which it found to be a permissible deterrent against the practice of primary election “raiding” by opposing party members.
Held: New York’s delayed-enrollment scheme did not violate petitioners’ constitutional rights. Pp. 410 U. S. 756-762.
(a) Section 186 did not absolutely prohibit petitioners from voting in the 1972 primary, but merely imposed a time deadline on their enrollment, which they chose to disregard. Pp. 410 U. S. 756-758.
(b) The statute does not deprive voters of their right under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to associate with the party of their choice or subsequently to change to another party, provided that the statutory time limit for doing so is observed. Pp. 410 U. S. 758-759.
(c) The cut-off date for enrollment, which occurs about eight months before a presidential, and 11 months before a nonpresidential, primary, is not arbitrary when viewed in light of the legitimate state purpose of avoiding disruptive party raiding. Pp. 410 U. S. 760-761.
458 F.2d 649, affirmed.
STEWART, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BURGER, C.J., and WHITE, BLACKMUN, and REHNQUIST, JJ., joined. POWELL, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which DOUGLAS, BRENNAN, and MARSHALL, JJ., joined, post, p. 410 U. S. 763.
Page 410 U. S. 753
56 persons born on the Midway Islands (guano islands under the Guano Islands Act of 1856)have been issued Hawaii birth cedrtificstes. This shows how easy it is
to get an Hawaii Birth Certificate and still not have to
be born in Hawaii.
In June 5, 2012 Presidential Primary, the American Independent Party of California will have three Hawaiians on the ballot for POTUS. Two are native Hawaiians, viz., Sisilo & Piva. One Hawaiian is George
Peabody, a recovering past chairman of the Hawai’i Libertarian Party.
As for Alaska natives there are two, viz. Todd Palin and
Walter Nayakik. Palin was first dude of Alaska and is
Eskimo. Nayakik mom was the famous in the 1924 and 1925
world press for being born on Wrangell Island in the Arctic Ocean on April 1, 1924 on real estate owned by the Lomen Bros. Company of Nome, AK. Eskimos did not
become citizens of the United States until Congress enacted legislation granting collective naturalization
effective January, 1941. They have a form of 2nd class
citizenship.
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Chairman, American Independent Party of California.
Only full political rights meet ant test of equality. Presidential vote without voting rights in the House and Senate is a sham. Full rights mean statehood. Is the US prepared to grant it to its second class citizens in the colonies? Neither the Dutch nor the French have colonies in the Caribbean. The French departments are the same as U.S. states w/ full political rights in the French Republic (the Pacific collectivites are another matter) . The Dutch have autonomous countries which have no voting rights in Holland. International law gives the people of the territories the choices of integration, free association or independence. Continued colonialism, even the benevolent sort, is a clear human rights violation.
The truth is, US territories have no Constitutional right to having a vote in Congress or for the office of the presidency. No president can alter that, even if they sign a treaty, no court can enforce it, unless Congress passes an amendment by 2/3 vote and is ratified by 3/4 of the states. Fat chance at that, and rightfully so. We provide methods for statehood, but many don’t want it because it forces them to take some responsibilities on themselves. By remaining territories they benefit from protection and money.
#22, the US Constitution is internally contradictory. Furthermore the US Constitution does not say that territories can’t have congressional representation; it just says that states can have congressional representation. The current setup cannot be squared with the 14th amendment.
Why do you think it’s OK that under current law and practice, the territories do have non-voting delegates to the US House? That isn’t mentioned in the US Constitution. US taxpayers pay the salaries of those Delegates to the US House.
Territories are/were NOT States — starting with the 1787 old NW Territory and then the old SW Territory.
Colonies are NOT States.
——
The House of Reps can let whomever show up on the floor according to the House Rules.
Since the colonies are U.S.A. regime property [Const. Art. IV, Sec. 3, para. 2) a U.S.A. law/treaty can pay for agents[aka delegates] from such colonies.
A bit late after the 1803 Louisiana Purchase — later producing about 12 States in whole or part — for complaints about territory/colony delegates.
—–
Uniform definition of Elector-Voter in ALL of the U.S.A. – to END the machinations.
P.R. and nonpartisan App.V.
#23 It says that House of Representatives shall be comprised of representatives chosen by the People of the several States.
By your liberal interpretation, it doesn’t say that the House of Representatives could not have additional members chosen by other means, or apportioned on some basis other than resident population.
17 –
I was with you until you endorsed fart-ins.
Please be serious.
#23 The Northwest Ordinance had a provision for a “Delegate to Congress”. As you may recall, the Northwest Ordinance was passed in 1787 by the Continental Congress (ie United States of American in Congress Assembled) prior to the institution of the present Constitution.
The Northwest Ordinance provides for organization of local self-government in territories northwest of the Ohio River as part of the transition of the area to statehood (5 states). Once there were 5000 adult males in a territory, they were to elect a House of Representatives. This territorial house of representatives would then nominate 10 persons to serve as members of the legislative council, of whom Congress would choose five. Thus the legislature would follow the British model of bicameral legislature, rather than that has evolved in the United States due to a lack of appointing authority for the upper house.
The territorial legislature acting as a single body would then select the Delegate to Congress for the territory, where he would have the right to debate, but not to vote.
Thus when the Constitution was created, the distinction between the States on one hand and territories of the United States, collectively, would be understood. The United States does not have its own sovereignty, but exercises the limited and conditional authority granted to the federal government under the Constitution.
When North Carolina acceded to the Union, it ceded Tennessee, and the Congress (now operating under the Constitution) implemented legislation similar to that for the Territory South of the Ohio (Southwest territory). The law doesn’t actually specify the terms, but simply says it should be like that for the Northwest Territory, except where it was different (for example differences in land title).
The first actual Delegate to Congress was James White in 1794, who was chosen by the legislature of the Territory South of the Ohio (ie Tennessee). When the House of Representatives debated what his status should be, some argued that he should be sent over to the Senate – he was elected in a manner similar to senators – by the territorial legislature, and the Senate as body composed of state delegations as it had been at the time of the Northwest Ordinance. Eventually the House decided to give Delegate White floor and debate privileges, and Congress passed legislation signed by President Washington granting him franking privileges and paying his compensation.
The House from time to time lets non-members enter the floor or even speak. As recently as a week ago, President Obama was permitted to address a joint session of Congress. there have been provisions for delegates
Pingback: Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s Visit to Guam and Northern Mariana Islands may Result in Greater U.S. Supreme Court Attention to Voting Rights in U.S. Territories | ThirdPartyPolitics.us
The United States still has remainders to two incorporated Territories, viz., Territory of Michigan
and the Territory of Hawai’i. They are no longer organized.
Queen Victoria established a colony on this remainder of
this Terriory of Michigan circa 1851. The United States
government protested and called them the Washington Islands.
As for the remainder of the Territory of Hawai’i, Queen
Victoria’s Royal Navy in 1889 annexed this remainder of
the Territory of Hawai’i and that island became unorganized in 1959, but still incoporated in the United
States.
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Chairman, American Independent Party of California
Adored the article. More research has shown that eating often does not necessarily improve your metabolism and hence fat burning. It’s on pubmed and worth checking out. Thanks