The land that democratic theory forgot

Indiana Law Journal

Volumn 83, Issue 4, 2008, Pages 1525-1556

  Fuentes Rohwer, Luis ^a  

^a INDIANA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 56049113263     PISSN: 00196665     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (221)

1. THOMAS PAINE, COMMON SENSE 4 (Penguin Books 2005) (1776).
2. See PEDRO A. MALAVET, AMERICA'S COLONY: THE POLITICAL AND CULTURAL CONFLICT BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND PUERTO RICO (2004).
3. Angel R. Oquendo, Liking to Be in America: Puerto Rico's Quest For Difference in the United States, 14 DUKE J. COMP. & INT'L L. 249, 249 (2004) (citing Elea.Carey, Spark's Novel Was Worth the Wait, COM. APPEAL, Jan. 22, 1995, at G3).
4. Rasul v. Bush, 215 F. Supp. 2d 55, 59 (D.D.C. 2002).
5. Id. at 57.
6. Id. at 62.
7. Id. at 56.
8. Id. at 72-73.
9. Rasul v. Bush, 215 F. Supp. 2d 55, 65 (D.D.C. 2002) (citing Johnson v. Eisentrager, 339 U.S. 763, 778 (1950)).
10. I am not alone in this sentiment. See, e.g., FOREIGN IN A DOMESTIC SENSE: PUERTO RICO, AMERICAN EXPANSION, AND THE CONSTITUTION (Christina Duffy Burnett & Burke Marshall eds., 2001); Jaime B. Fuster, The Origins of the Doctrine of Territorial Incorporation and Its Implications Regarding the Power of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico to Regulate Interstate Commerce, 43 REV. JUR. U.P.R. 259 (1974); Marcos A. Ramirez, Los Casos Insulares: Un Estudio Sobre el Proceso Judicial, 16 REV. JUR. U.P.R. 121 (1946); Efrén Rivera Ramos, The Legal Construction of American Colonialism: The Insular Cases (1901-1922), 65 REV. JUR. U.P.R. 225 (1996); Ediberto Roman, Empire Forgotten: The United States Colonization of Puerto Rico, 42 VILL. L. REV. 1119 (1997).
11. Ch. 145, § 5, 39 Stat. 951 (1917). The Act has been frequently amended and is presently codified as 48 U.S.C. § 737 (2000).
12. See Igartua-De La Rosa v. U.S., 417 F.3d 145,168 (1st Cir. 2005).
13. Pub. L. No. 99-410, 100 Stat. 924 (1986) (codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. § 1973ff (Supp. IV 2000)).
14. 42 U.S.C. §§ 1973ff-6(8).
15. See, e.g., Igartúa de la Rosa v. United States (Igartúa IV), 417 F.3d 145 (1st Cir. 2005) (en bane); Igartúa de la Rosa v. United States (Igartúa I), 842 F. Supp. 607 (D.P.R. 1994), aff'd, 32 F.3d 8 (1st Cir.1994); John C. Fortier, The Constitution Is Clear: Only States Vote in Congress, 116 YALE L.J. POCKET PART 403 (2007), http://thepocketpart.org/2007/05/19/fortier.html.
16. See JOSÉ TRÍAS MONGE, PUERTO RICO: THE TRIALS OF THE OLDEST COLONY IN THE WORLD 3 (1997).
17. PAINE, supra note 1, at 35.
18. Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War art. 3, Aug. 12, 1949, 6 U.S.T. 3316, 75 U.N.T.S. 135; see Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 126 S.Ct. 2749, 2795-98 (2006).
19. See, e.g., Baher Azmy, Rasul v. Bush and the Intraterritorial Constitution, 62 N.Y.U. ANN. SURVEY AM. L. 369 (2007); Gerald L. Neuman, Extraterritorial Rights and Constitutional Methodology After Rasul v. Bush, 153 U. PA. L. REV. 2073 (2005); Kermit Roosevelt III, Guantanamo and the Conflict of Laws: Rasul and Beyond, 153 U. PA. L. REV. 2017 (2005); Elizabeth A. Wilson, The War on Terrorism and "The Water's Edge ": Sovereignty, "Territorial Jurisdiction, " and the Reach of the U.S. Constitution in the Guantanamo Detainee Litigation, 8 U. PA. J. CONST. L. 165 (2006).
20. See generally EMMERICH DE VATTEL, THE LAW OF NATIONS (Charles G. Fenwick trans.,1758), reprinted in 3 THE CLASSICS OF INTERNATIONAL LAW (lames Brown Scott ed., 1964).
21. Alexander Hamilton, Final Version of an Opinion on the Constitutionality of an Act to Establish a Bank, in 8 THE PAPERS OF ALEXANDER HAMILTON 97, 100 (Harold C. Syrett ed., 1965) (emphasis in original).
22. Id.
23. Id.
24. Id.
25. 1 HENRY ADAMS, HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DURING THE ADMINISTRATIONS OF THOMAS JEFFERSON 356 (Earl N. Harbert ed., Library of America 1986) (1889-91). In fact, Adams argues that the constitutional question arose as soon as Jefferson sent Monroe to France to buy New Orleans and Florida. Id. at 354.
26. Letter from Thomas Jefferson to Wilson Cary Nicholas (Sept. 7, 1803), in THOMAS JEFFERSON: WRITINGS 1139, 1140 (Merrill D. Peterson ed., 1984) [hereinafter Letter to Nicholas]. He continues: I say the same as to the opinion of those who consider the grant of the treaty making power as boundless. If it is, then we have no Constitution.... If it has bounds, they can be no others than the definitions of the powers which that instrument gives. . . . Let us go on then perfecting it, by adding, by way of amendment to the Constitution, those powers which time & trial show are still wanting. Id.
27. See EVERETT SOMERVILLE BROWN, THE CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OF THE LOUISIANA PURCHASE 1803-1812, at 25 (1920).
28. Letter to Nicholas, supra note 26. John Quincy Adams accused Jefferson of hypocrisy, for taking this stance immediately upon assuming office yet campaigning under a states' rights banner. BROWN, supra note 27, at 30-31.
29. BROWN, supra note 27, at 31 (quoting 3 JARED SPARKS, LIFE OF GOUVERNEUR MORRIS 185 (1832)).
30. 26 U.S. 511(1828).
31. Id. at 516 n.*.
32. Id. at 542 ("The Constitution confers absolutely on the government of the Union the powers of making war, and of making treaties; consequently, that Government possesses the power of acquiring territory, either by conquest or by treaty."). In so answering this question, the Court concluded that the acquired territories remain at the whim of Congress under its general power "to make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States." Id. In this way, the Court upheld the Circuit Court's ruling; it concluded that the Florida act is not in violation of the Constitution, for the court in question is not a constitutional but a legislative court, subject to congressional authority.
33. Id. at 542 (arguing that the treaty is not the sole source for the terms of the annexation, since these may also be modified at will "on such [terms] as its new master shall impose").
34. For a wonderful, brief history, see Sylvia R. Lazos Vargas, History, Legal Scholarship, and LatCrit Theory: The Case of Racial Transformations Circa the Spanish American War, 1896-1900, 78 DENV. U. L. REV. 921 (2001).
35. Canter, 26 U.S. at 542.
36. Id.
37. 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857).
38. Id. at 446-47.
39. Id. at 447.
40. Id.
41. Scholars largely limit the label of Insular Cases to nine cases decided during the Court's 1901 Term. Five of these cases dealt particularly with questions concerning the status of Puerto Rico. See De Lima v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 1 (1901); Goetze v. United States, 182 U.S. 221 (1901); Dooley v. United States, 182 U.S. 222 (1901); Armstrong v. United States, 182 U.S. 243 (1901); Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901).
42. Dooley, 182 U.S. at 233-34; see also Armstrong, 182 U.S. at 243.
43. De Lima, 182 U.S. at 180.
44. Doofey, 182 U.S. at 232.
45. De Lima, 182 U.S. at 196; see Goetze, 182 U.S. at 221; Huus v. New York & P.R. Steamship Co., 182 U.S. 392 (1901).
46. See Christina Duffy Burnett, Untied States: American Expansion and Territorial Deannexation, 72 U. CHI. L. REV. 797 (2005).
47. 182 U.S. 244 (1901).
48. See id. at 244 n.1; 2 CHARLES WARREN, THE SUPREME COURT IN UNITED STATES HISTORY 431 (1922) ("The division of opinion on the Court was sharp and pronounced.").
49. Downes, 182 U.S. at 249.
50. Id. at 268.
51. JUAN R. TORRUELLA, THE SUPREME COURT AND PUERTO RICO: THE DOCTRINE OF SEPARATE AND UNEQUAL 53 (1985); see David P. Currie, The Constitution in the Supreme Court: Full Faith and the Bill of Rights, 1889-1910, 52 U. CHI. L. REV. 867, 874 (1985) (calling Brown's opinion in Downes "distressing").
52. Downes, 182 U.S. at 288 (White, J., concurring); see Dorr v. United States, 195 U.S. 138 (1904); Frederick R. Coudert, The Evolution of the Doctrine of Territorial Incorporation, 26 COLUM. L. REV. 823 (1926). For a recent critique, see Gabriel A. Terrasa, The United States, Puerto Rico, and the Territorial Incorporation Doctrine: Reaching a Century of Constitutional Authoritarianism, 31 J. MARSHALL L. REV. 55, 56-57 (1997).
53. See Rassmussen v. United States, 197 U.S. 516 (1905); Hawaii v. Mankichi, 190 U.S. 197 (1903) (concluding that Newlands Resolution does not require full application of the Constitution to Hawaii, since it is only an annexed territory, not yet incorporated, and the rights at issue are not fundamental but procedural). Balzac v. Porto Rico, 258 U.S. 298 (1922), finalized the establishment of the incorporation doctrine.
54. Dowries, 182 U.S. at 290 (White, J., concurring).
55. Id.
56. Id. at 291. This position was first developed in a famous exchange in the pages of the Harvard Law Review. See Abbott Lawrence Lowell, The Status of Our New Possessions - A Third View, 13 HARV. L. REV. 155 (1899).
57. Ch. 145, § 5, 39 Stat. 951 (1917); see, e.g., Balzac v. Porto Rico, 258 U.S. 298, 307 (1922).
58. Downes, 182 U.S. at 376 (Harlan, J. dissenting); see Trono v. United States, 199 U.S. 521, 535 (1905) (Harlan, J., dissenting); Rassmussen, 197 U.S. at 528 (Harlan, J., concurring); Dorr v. United States, 195 U.S. 138,154 (1904) (Harlan, J., dissenting); Mankichi, 190 U.S. at 226 (Harlan, J., dissenting).
59. Downes, 182 U.S. at 378 (Harlan J., dissenting) (citing Martin v. Hunter, 1 Wheat. 304, 327 (1816)).
60. Id. at 380.
61. Cf. Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1856).
62. Mark Twain, To the Person Sitting in Darkness, 172 N. AM. REV. 161, 167 (Feb. 1901).
63. See Burnett, supra note 46, at 802.
64. Under Article III, Spain also ceded "the archipelago known as the Philippine Islands," for a payment of $20 million. Treaty of Paris, U.S.-Spain, Dec. 10, 1898, 30 Stat. 1754.
65. For a wonderful brief account of this moment in American history, see TRÍAS MONGE, supra note 16.
66. Juan F. Perea, Fulfilling Manifest Destiny: Conquest, Race and the Insular Cases, in FOREIGN IN A DOMESTIC SENSE, supra note 10 at 140; see Gabriel A.Terrasa, The United States, Puerto Rico, and the Territorial Incorporation Doctrine: Reaching a Century of Constitutional Authoritarianism, 31 J. MARSHALL L. REV. 55 (1997). For a specific application of this argument to the history of Puerto Rico, see RONALD FERNANDEZ, THE DISENCHANTED ISLAND: PUERTO RICO AND THE UNITED STATES IN THE TWENTIETH CENTURY 13 (1992).
67. 62 CONG. REC. 2798 (1912) (remarks of Rep. Slayton).
68. Rogers M. Smith, The Bitter Roots of Puerto Rican Citizenship, in FOREIGN IN A DOMESTIC SENSE, supra note 10, at 373, 378 (citing 56 CONG. REC. 711 (1900) (remarks of Sen. Albert Beveridge)). This is not to suggest that matters have improved. For a recent example, see 137 CONG. REC. 3962 (1991) (statement of Senator Moynihan) (asserting that statements by other Senators during a debate over the status of Puerto Rico were "the most shameful display of nativism I have yet to encounter in 15 years in the Senate"); see also Ediberto Roman, The Alien-Citizen Paradox and Other Consequences of U.S. Colonialism, 26 FLA. ST. U. L. REV. 1, 32 ("Congress' nativist and xenophobic fears continue to threaten the process that may lead to freedom and full acceptance for the people of Puerto Rico.").
69. Smith, supra note 68, at 377 (citing Abbot Lawrence Lowell, The Colonial Expansion of the United States, 83 ATLANTIC MONTHLY 145, 149-54 ( 1899)); see Simeon E. Baldwin, The Constitutional Questions Incident to the Acquisition and Government by the United States of Island Territory, 12 HARV. L. REV. 393, 415 (1899).
70. Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244, 280 (1901); see RUBIN FRANCIS WESTON, RACISM IN U.S. IMPERIALISM: THE INFLUENCE OF RACIAL ASSUMPTIONS ON AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY, 1893-1946, at 162-63 (1972) ("The actions of the federal government during the imperial period and the relation of the Negro to a status of second-class citizenship indicated that the Southern point of view would prevail. The racism which caused the relegation of the Negro to a status of inferiority was to be applied to the overseas possessions of the United States.").
71. The Court's analysis on this point leaves a lot to be desired, as the intent of Congress is not as unambiguous as the Court intimates. Compare People v. Balzac, 258 U.S. 298 (1922), with Rassmussen v. United States, 197 U.S. 516 (1905), and Hawaii v. Mankichi, 190 U.S. 197 (1903).
72. Efrén Rivera Ramos, Deconstructing Colonialism: The "Unincorporated Territory " as a Category of Domination, in FOREIGN IN A DOMESTIC SENSE, supra note 10, at 113; see Deborah D. Herrera, Unincorporated and Exploited: Deferential Treatment for Trust Territory Claimant - Why Doesn't the Constitution Follow the Flag, 2 SETON HALL CONST. L.J. 593, 609-10 (1992).
73. David P. Currie, The Constitution in the Supreme Court: Full Faith and the Bill of Rights, 1889-1910,52 U. CHI. L. REV. 867, 874 (1985).
74. Roman, supra note 68, at 23.
75. Gerald L. Neuman, Whose Constitution?, 100 YALE L.J. 909, 964 (1991).
76. 163 U.S. 527 (1896).
77. Igartúa de la Rosa v. United States (Igartúa IV), 417 F.3d 145, 163 (1st Cir. 2005) (Tomiella, J., dissenting).
78. 31 Stat 77 (1900) (codified as amended at 48 USC § 731 et seq (2000)).
79. 31 Stat. 77, 79 (1900). So long, of course, as they did not elect to preserve their allegiance to Spain under provisions of the Treaty of Paris. Id.
80. Smith, supra note 68, at 375.
81. Id. at 380.
82. Treaty of Paris, U.S.-Spain, Dec. 10, 1898, 30 Stat. 1754.
83. Id. at 1759.
84. Id.
85. Id.
86. See WESTON, supra note 70, at 184.
87. Id.
88. 31 Stat. 77, 79-86 (1900).
89. Id.
90. Id.
91. Id.
92. See TORRUELLA, supra note 51, at 118.
93. Jones Act (Puerto Rico), ch. 145, § 5, 39 Stat. 951 (1917) (current version at 8 U.S.C. § 1402 (1976)).
94. TRÍAS MONGE, supra note 16, at 75.
95. See TRÍAS MONGE, supra note 16, at 75.
96. See id.
97. TORRUELLA, supra note 51, at 118.
98. Elective Governor Act of 1947 § 7,48 U.S.C. § 737 (2000).
99. Act of July 3, 1950, Pub. L. No. 600, ch. 446, 64 Stat. 319.
100. TRÍAS MONGE, supra note 16, at 115 ("According to Governor Luis Munoz Marin, for example, passage of the new constitution established 'the principle that the relationship is from now on one of consent through free agreement, wipes out all trace of colonialism'"); see ALFREDO MONTALVO-BARBOT, POLITICAL CONFLICT AND CONSTITUTIONAL CHANGE IN PUERTO RICO, 1989-1952, at 143 (1997) (contending that "in general, the presentation of the Puerto Rican people as passive agents in the constitutional transformation of the island, an argument advanced by gradualists and traditional colonialist studies, is analytically and empirically simplistic and questionable").
101. See TRÍAS MONGE, supra note 16, at 149-58.
102. Id. at 114-15.
103. See id.
104. Puerto Rico Constitution: Hearings on H.R. 7674 and S. 3336 Before the H. Comm. on Public Lands, 81st Cong. 33 (1950).
105. See Balzac v. Porto Rico, 258 U.S. 298 (1922).
106. See TORRUELLA, supra note 51, at ch. 5.
107. 435 U.S. 1 (1978).
108. Id. at 2-3.
109. Id. at 3.
110. Id. at 2.
111. Id. at 3.
112. Id. at 5.
113. Id. at 4.
114. Id. at 5 n.7.
115. See TORRUELLA, supra note 51, at 111.
116. 446 U.S. 651(1980).
117. Id. at 651.
118. Id.
119. Id. at 651-52.
120. Id. at 652 n.*.
121. T. Alexander Aleinikoff, Puerto Rico and the Constitution: Conundrums and Prospects, 11 CONST. COMMENT. 15, 22 (1994).
122. Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244, 341-42 (1901).
123. See, e.g., RALPH S. KUYKENDALL & A. GROVE DAY, HAWAII: A HISTORY FROM POLYNESIAN KINGDOM TO AMERICAN COMMONWEALTH (1948); LILIUOKALANI, HAWAII'S STORY BY HAWAII'S QUEEN (1964); GLENN W. PRICE, ORIGINS OF THE WAR WITH MEXICO: THE POLK-STOCKTON INTRIGUE (1967); OTIS A. SINGLETARY, THE MEXICAN WAR (1960).
124. See, e.g., Tee-Hit-Ton Indians v. United States, 348 U.S. 272,279-82 (1955) (asserting that the Indian tribes have been conquered through warfare or forced treaties); id. at 289-90 (concluding that an Indian tribe's right to live on land must first be recognized by Congress); Johnson v. M'Intosh, 21 U.S. 543, 587 (1823) (holding that a discoverer may extinguish the rights of Indian tribes to land by either conquest or purchase). See Nell Jessup Newton, At the Whim of the Sovereign: Aboriginal Title Reconsidered, 31 HASTINGS L.J. 1215 (1980).
125. As y ou read, treat the discussion as exploratory in nature. I examine this issue in much greater detail elsewhere. See Luis Fuentes-Rohwer, On the Making of Happy Slaves (unpublished manuscript, on file with the Indiana Law Journal).
126. See generally R.M. Hare, Political Obligation, in SOCIAL ENDS AND POLITICAL MEANS 1 (Ted Honderich ed., 1976).
127. See generally JEREMY BENTHAM, A FRAGMENT ON GOVERNMENT (R. Harrison ed., 1988) (explaining the Utlilitarian view of government).
128. See T.H. GREEN, LECTURES ON THE PRINCIPLES OF POLITICAL OBLIGATIONS AND OTHER WRITINGS (Paul Harris & John Morrow eds., 1986).
129. See José A. Cabranes, Puerto Rico and the Constitution, 110 F.R.D. 475 (1986).
130. Id. at 479.
131. See José Trías Monge, Plenary Power and the Principle of Liberty: An Alternative View of the Political Condition of Puerto Rico, 68 REV. JUR. U.P.R. 1, 27 (1999) ("The subjection of a people to the arbitrary will of another, the exercise of plenary power over dependent territory, is not permissible."); id. at 28 ("Under the principles of liberty and equality no plenary powers can be exercised by one people over another, even with their general consent.").
132. See, e.g., JOHN RAWLS, A THEORY OF JUSTICE 351 (1971).
133. Id.
134. See Harris v. Rosario, 446 U.S. 651, 651-52 (1980) (stating that Congress could treat Puerto Rico differently from states so long as there was a rational basis for its actions); Califano v. Torres, 435 U.S. 1, 5 (1978) (stating that unequal treatment of citizens in Puerto Rico is acceptable so long as the reasoning behind the treatment is rational and not invidious).
135. See CAROLE PATEMAN, THE DISORDER OF WOMEN: DEMOCRACY, FEMINISM, AND POLITICAL THEORY 58, 60 (1989) ("Given the initial postulate of individual freedom and equality, there is only one rational and acceptable justification for political obligation and political authority. Individuals must themselves consent, contract, agree, choose or promise to enter such a relationship."); Ilya Somin, Revitalizing Consent, 23 HARV. J.L. & PUB. POL'Y 753 (2000); Trías Monge, supra note 131, at 27 ("[O]nly consent can supply an adequate basis for the institution of government."). For criticisms, see, e.g., ROBERT PAUL WOLFF, IN DEFENSE OF ANARCHISM (1971); Lea Brilmayer, Consent, Contract, and Theory, 74 MINN. L. REV. 1 (1989); Pierre Schlag, The Empty Circles of Liberal Justification, 96 MICH. L. REV. 1 (1997).
136. Act of July 3, 1950, ch. 446, § 2, 64 Stat. 319.
137. TORRUELLA, supra note 51, at 158 (quoting Statement of President Truman, July 3, 1952).
138. Public Law 600 states: "[T]his Act is now adopted in the nature of a compact...." Act of July 3, 1950, ch. 446, 64 Stat. 319 (1950) (providing for the organization of a constitutional government by the people of Puerto Rico). Article I of the Constitution of Puerto Rico states that the political power of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico "shall be exercised... within the terms of the compact agreed upon between the people of Puerto Rico and the United States of America." P.R. CONST. art. I.
139. United States v. Quinonez, 758 F.2d 40, 42-43 (1st Cir. 1985); RAYMOND CARR, PUERTO RICO: A COLONIAL EXPERIMENT 77-78 (1984) (arguing that the relationship between the United States and Puerto Rico is based on a compact as a result of the 1952 referendum and adoption of the Puerto Rican Constitution); Rafael Hernández Colón, The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico: Territory or State?, 19 REV. COL. ABOG. P.R. 207 (1959); Hon. Calvert Magruder, The Commonwealth Status of Puerto Rico, 15 U. PITT. L. REV. 1, 5, 9-16 (1953).
140. Both Calero-Toledo v. Pearson Yacht Leasing Co., 416 U.S. 663, 671 (1974), and Examining Board v. Flores de Otero, 426 U.S. 572, 594-96 (1976), for example, used language of "compact." For a description of this compact, see Calero, 416 U.S. at 672 (quoting Mora v. Mejias, 206 F.2d 377, 387 (1st Cir. 1953)). See Arnold Leibowitz, The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico: Trying to Gain Dignity and Maintain Culture, 17 REV. JUR. U.I.P.R. 1 (1982) (contending that the Supreme Court has accepted the "compact" reading).
141. See United States v. Lopez Andino, 831 F.2d 1164, 1172 (1st Cir. 1987) (Torruella J., concurring); Cabranes, supra note 129, at 481; David Helfeld, Congressional Intent and Attitude Toward Public Law 600 and the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, 31 REV. IUR. U.P.R. 255, 307 (1952) ("Though the formal title has been changed, in constitutional theory Puerto Rico remains, a territory. This means that Congress continues to possess plenary but unexercised authority over Puerto Rico.").
142. See TORRUELLA, supra note 51; Cabranes, supra note 129 (referring to status as colonialism); see also JAMES E. KERR, THE INSULAR CASES: THE ROLE OF THE JUDICIARY IN AMERICAN EXPANSIONISM 119 (1982) ("The establishment of commonwealth status perpetrated the myth that Puerto Ricans had exercised the right to self-determination. But that was not the case. With the acceptance of the new status, Puerto Rico was not offered statehood, yet it was no longer a colony in the sense that it had been."); Jon M. Van Dyke, The Evolving Legal Relationships Between The United States and Its Affiliated U.S.-Flag Islands, 14 U. HAW. L. REV. 445 (1992) (agreeing with Judge Cabranes about Puerto Rico's colonial status). But see David M. Helfeld, How Much of the United States Constitution and Statutes Are Applicable to the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico?, 110 F.R.D. 452 (1985) ("In my opinion there is a compact, in the nature of an understanding based on considerations of political morality, limited to the Constitution of Puerto Rico and the provisions of Acts 600 and 447 which relate to the internal affairs of the island.").
143. Cabranes, supra note 129, at n.26 ("[T]he phrase 'colonialism with the consent of the governed' is a familiar one in Puerto Rico's politics."); see Trias Monge, supra note 131, at 162.
144. TORRUELLA, supra note 51, at 194; Aleinikoff, supra note 121, at 33 (positing that the argument that establishment of commonwealth ended Congress' plenary power "seems a loser.").
145. See Helfeld, supra note 142, at 458.
146. MONTALVO-BARBOT, supra note 100, at 143. He explains: "[I]n general, the presentation of the Puerto Rican people as passive agents in the constitutional transformation of the island, an argument advanced by gradualists and traditional colonialist studies, is analytically and empirically simplistic and questionable." Id.; see Leibowitz, supra note 140 (discussing the many issues involved in the status of Puerto Rico and its relationship to the United States, especially statutory issues).
147. Roman, supra note 68, at 39.
148. John C. Fortier, The Constitution Is Clear; Only States Vote in Congress, 116 YALE L.J. POCKET PART 403 (2007), http://thepocketpart.org/2007/05/19/fortier.html.
149. THOMAS HOBBES, LEVIATHAN 255 (C.B. Macpherson ed., Penguin Classics 1985) (1651).
150. Id. at 255-56.
151. R.W. VAN ALSTYNE, THE RISING AMERICAN EMPIRE 78-99 (1960).
152. 31 Stat. 77 (1900) (codified as amended at 48 USC § 731 et seq (2000)).
153. For the leading account of this period in particular reference to the question of citizenship, see José A. Cabranes, Citizenship and the American Empire: Notes on the Legislative History of the United States Citizenship of Puerto Ricans, 127 U. PA. L. REV. 391 (1978).
154. See TORRUELLA, supra note 51, at 85.
155. Id. at 89 (citing 51 CONG. REC. 74, 75 (1913)).
156. Ch. 145, § 5, 39 Stat. 951 (1917).
157. Cf. Rassmussen v. United States, 197 U.S. 516, 522-23 (1905) (discussing the pre-statehood status of Alaska and the United State's plan to incorporate it into the union); Hawaii v. Mankichi, 190 U.S. 197, 200 (1903) (discussing the pre-statehood status of Hawaii).
158. See MANUEL MALDONADO-DENIS, PUERTO RICO: A SOCIO-HISTORIC INTERPRETATION 108 (Elena Vialo trans., Random House 1972) (1972).
159. See Cabranes, supra note 153, at 404-05.
160. See id. at 403-06.
161. See id. at 406-07.
162. 258 U.S. 298 (1922).
163. Id. at 306.
164. Id. at 308.
165. Cf. Rassmussen v. United States, 197 U.S. 516 (1905) (discussing Alaska's incorporation).
166. Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244, 287 (1901) (White, J., concurring).
167. Rassmussen, 197 U.S. at 533 (Brown, J., concurring).
168. Id. at 516-25.
169. Treaty Concerning the Cessation of the Russian Possessions in North America, U.S.-Russ., Mar. 30, 1867, 15 Stat. 542.
170. Treaty of Paris, U.S.-Spain, Dec. 10, 1898, 30 Stat. 1754.
171. Treaty of Cession, March 30, 1867, U.S.-Russ., 15 Stat. 542.
172. Balzac v. Porto Rico, 258 U.S. 298, 311 (1922).
173. Id. at 309.
174. See Welcome to Puerto Rico, http://welcome.topuertorico.org/index. shtml.
175. Id. at 309.
176. Id.
177. Id. at 310.
178. TORRUELLA, supra note 51, at 100.
179. Rassmussen v. United States, 197 U.S. 516, 522 (1905).
180. Id.
181. Peter J. Spiro, The Citizenship Dilemma, 51 STAN. L. REV. 597, 598 (1999) (reviewing ROGERS M. SMITH, CIVIC IDEALS: CONFLICTING VISIONS OF CITIZENSHIP INU.S. HISTORY (1997)); see Ronald Takaki, Race at the End of History, in THE GOOD CITIZEN 81, 82 (David Batstone & Eduardo Mendieta eds., 1999).
182. THUCYDIDES, THE PELOPONNESIAN WAR 474 (Richard Crawley trans., Modem Library 1982).
183. Id.
184. ROGERS BRUBAKER, CITIZENSHIP AND NATIONHOOD IN FRANCE AND GERMANY (1992).
185. See T. Alexander Aleinikoff, Citizens, Aliens, Membership, and the Constitution, 7 CONST. COMMENT. 9, 12 (1990). For critiques of this model, see id. at 20-27; Paul Tiao, Non-Citizen Suffrage: An Argument Based on the Voting Rights Act and Related Law, 25 COLUM. HUM. RTS. L. REV. 171, 215-217 (1993).
186. In the leading casebook in the immigration law field, for example, the authors define citizenship as "a term generally understood to mean full members of the state, entitled to the basic rights and opportunities afforded by the state." T. ALEXANDER ALEINIKOFF, DAVID A. MARTIN & HIROSHI MOTOMURA, IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP: PROCESS AND POLICY 1 (4th ed., 1998). Similarly, Peter Schuck and Rogers Smith define citizenship rules under one of two principles, either ascription or consensual. On either account, as they understand them, the relevant question is one of political community. See PETER H. SCHUCK & ROGERS M. SMITH, CITIZENSHIP WITHOUT CONSENT: ALIENS IN THE AMERICAN POLITY 4 (1985).
187. T.H. Marshall, Citizenship and Social Class, in CLASS, CITIZENSHIP, AND SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT: ESSAYS 65, 84 (1964).
188. See JUDITH N. SHKLAR, AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP: THE QUEST FOR INCLUSION 2(1991); see also Jamin B. Raskin, Legal Aliens, Local Citizens: The Historical, Constitutional and Theoretical Meanings of Alien Suffrage, 141 U. PA. L. REV. 1391, 1448 (1993) (arguing that without the franchise, one "lack[s] the crucial form of social recognition").
189. SHKLAR, supra note 188, at 9.
190. Id. at 15.
191. Id. at 18-19.
192. See Pedro A. Malavet, Puerto Rico: Cultural Nation, American Colony, 6 MICH. J. RACE. & L. 1 (2000).
193. See id. at 67-69.
194. Id. at 70.
195. ROGERS M. SMITH, CIVIC IDEALS: CONFLICTING VISIONS OF CITIZENSHIP IN U.S. HISTORY 430 (1999); Rivera Ramos, supra note 72, at 108; Roman, supra note 68.
196. Rivera Ramos, supra note 72, at 107.
197. See Balzac v. Porto Rico, 258 U.S. 298, 308 (1922).
198. Igartúa de la Rosa v. United States (Igartúa II), 229 F.3d 80, 89 (1st Cir. 2000).
199. See Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162, 165-66 (1874).
200. 376 F.Supp. 239 (D.P.R. 1974).
201. Id. at 240.
202. Id. at 241.
203. Id.
204. Id. at 242.
205. See U.S. CONST. amend. XXVI, § 1; Richardson v. Ramirez, 418 U.S. 24 (1974).
206. See Demian A. Ordway, Note, Disenfranchisement and the Constitution: Finding a Standard that Works, 82 N.Y.U. L. REV. 1174 (2007).
207. Pamela S. Karlan, The Impact of the Voting Rights Act on African Americans: Second-and Third-Generation Issues, in VOTING RIGHTS AND REDISTRICTING IN THE UNITED STATES 121, 122 (Mark E. Rush ed., 1998).
208. See Igartúa de la Rosa (Igartúa IV), 417 F.3d 145 (1st Cir. 2005) (en bane); Igartúa de la Rosa v. United States (Igartúa III), 386 F.3d 313 (1st Cir. 2005), vac and reh'g, 404 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2005), rev'd, 407 F.3d 30 (1st Cir. 2005) (en bane); Igartúa de la Rosa v. United States (Igartúa II), 107 F.Supp.2d 140 (D.P.R. 2000), rev'd, 229 F.3d 80 (1st Cir. 2000); Igartúa de la Rosa v. United States (Igartúa I), 842 F.Supp. 607 (D.P.R. 1994), aff'd, 32 F.3d 8 (1st Cir. 1994), cert, denied, 514 U.S. 1049 (1995).
209. Jeane J. Kirkpatrick & Kenneth L. Adelman, Op-Ed., Stirring Up Trouble In Puerto Rico, N. Y. TIMES, Feb. 26, 2006, at WK13.
210. See Christina Duffy Burnett, Two Puerto Rican Senators Stay Home, 116 YALE L.J. POCKET PART 408 (2007), http://thepocketpart.org/2007/05/19/burnett.html.
211. See David C. Indiano, The Top 10 Myths About Puerto Rico Statehood, 52 FED. LAW. 8, 10 (2005) ("Puerto Ricans pay all the federal taxes that Congress requires them to pay.")•
212. Igartúa III, 386 F.3d at 315 (Torruella, dissenting) ("It should be noted that Puerto Rico residents pay the same Social Security tax as the citizens who reside in the states and receive the same benefits." (emphasis in original)).
213. Burnett, supra note 210.
214. Igartúa de la Rosa v. United States (Ignartúa II), 107 F.Supp. 140,147 (D.P.R. 2000).
215. See Amber L. Cottle, Comment, Silent Citizens: United States Territorial Residents and the Right to Vote in Presidential Elections, 1995 U. CHI. LEGAL F. 315, 327-30 (1995).
216. U.S. CONST. amend. XXIV; Harper v. Va. Bd. of Elections, 383 U.S. 663, 668 (1966) ("To introduce wealth or payment of a fee as a measure of a voter's qualifications is to introduce a capricious or irrelevant factor.").
217. Burnett, supra note 210.
218. Ignartúa II, 107 F.Supp. at 148.
219. See Luis Fuentes-Rohwer, Bringing Democracy to Puerto Rico: A Rejoinder, 11 HARV. LATINO L. REV. 157, 164-65 (2008).
220. Aleinikoff, supra note 121, at 33.
221. See Igartua de la Rosa v. United States, 229 F.3d 80 (1st Cir. 2000) (Torruella, J., concurring) (condemning the present political status of Puerto Rico as "colonial treatment by the United States"); Lisa Napoli, The Legal Recognition of the National Identity of a Colonized People: The Case of Puerto Rico, 18 B.C. THIRD WORLD L.J. 159, 160 (1998); Román, supra note 68, at 6 (illustrating "the incompatibility of equality under colonialism").