Saying the Obvious

Yesterday, the Subcommittee of Insular Affairs of the Committee of Natural Resources of the U.S. House held hearings on two proposed House Bills aimed at resolving the Puerto Rican status problem.  H.R. 900, the "Puerto Rico Democracy Act of 2007," declares the current status of "Commonwealth" as territorial and set forth a process by which Puerto Ricans can vote between (a) ending the current status or continuing and (b) if they choose to end it, then choose between Statehood, Free Associated Republic, or Full Independence, the only recognized non-territorial political alternatives acceptable under the U.S. Constitution and under international law.

H.R. 1230, the "Puerto Rico Self Determination Act of 2007" would provide for something utterly ridiculous and useless.  It basically calls upon Congress to acknowledge that Puerto Ricans can call a Constitutional Convention to develop a Self-Determination option to present to Puerto Rican voters.  If the voters approve, then the Convention would present that option to Congress.  If Congress disagrees or rejects that option, then the whole process starts all over again.

I favor H.R. 900 because it lays down a path to resolve Puerto Rico's quandary in relatively short order.  However, the one thing about H.R. 900 that pro-commonwealth supporters dislike is the fact that it ends Commonwealth and declares it to be a territorial status.  It goes further, by declaring the proposed "New Commonwealth" (which is nothing short of "having your cake and eating it too") of being unconstitutional

Some in Puerto Rico have proposed a “New Commonwealth” status, under which Puerto Rico would become an autonomous, non-territorial, non-State entity in permanent union with the United States under a covenant that could not be altered without the “mutual consent” of Puerto Rico and the federal Government. In October 2000, a few months before President Clinton established the Task Force, the House Committee on Resources held a hearing on a bill (H.R. 4751) incorporating a version of the “New Commonwealth” proposal. William Treanor, who held the same position in the Office of Legal Counsel that I now hold, testified that this proposal was not constitutional. . .

The effect of this legal conclusion is that the “New Commonwealth” option, as the Task Force understood it, is not consistent with the Constitution. Any promises that the United States might make regarding Puerto Rico’s status as a commonwealth would not be binding. Puerto Rico would remain subject to Congress’s authority under the Territory Clause of the Constitution “to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory . . . belonging to the United States.” Puerto Rico receives a number of benefits from this status, such as favorable tax treatment. And Puerto Rico may remain in its current Commonwealth, or territorial, status indefinitely, but always subject to Congress’s ultimate authority to alter the terms of that status, as the Constitution provides that Congress may do with any U.S. territory.

As for the third option of independence, there are several possible ways of structuring it, so long as it is made clear that Puerto Rico is no longer under United States sovereignty. When the United States made the Philippines independent in 1946, the two nations entered into a Treaty of General Relations. Congress might also provide for a closer relationship along the lines of the “freely associated states” of Micronesia, the Marshall Islands, and Palau. The report explains, with a few qualifications, that, “[a]mong the constitutionally available options, freely associated status may come closest to providing for the relationship between Puerto Rico and the United States that advocates for ‘New Commonwealth’ status appear to desire.”

Emphasis added.  Therein lies the rub.  It is sacrilegious for pro-Commonwealth supporters to equate "Commonwealth" with "Independence."  However, this is as obvious as it is difficult for populares to swallow.   But it's a start.  Sometimes you can tear things down with a big explosion, and sometimes you just have to keep chipping away at it.

Baby steps.  But I'll take them.

Tags: Politics, Puerto Rico

Comments

[La Ventanita]

The commonwealth should've NEVER been allowed as a solution, and should've never been allowed to be included in any of the previous plebiscitos.

I'd love to see what Puerto Ricans faced with only independence or statehood choose. I know what my choice would be, but I'd like to see how this plays out.

[El Loco]

LV, Puerto Ricans would choose statehood. Overwhelmingly. Or, pro-commonwealth supporters would abstain from voting. You know, boicot the vote to de-legitimze it.

[Gerardo Ramirez]

Puerto Rico, like the District of Columbia, are US Territories since 1898. Being Disenfranchised and under the Sovereignity of the US Congress is a CRUEL example of Lack of Democracy. We pay some Income taxes, Social Security, federal unemployment and dissability. We CANNOT pay other federal Income Taxes due to a "Congressional Act", that prohibits us to pay them.We CANNOT Vote for our COMMANDER IN CHIEF and PRESIDENT, but have to PROTECT the Same Liberty and Civil Rights that the Rest of our CO-CITIZENS enjoy throghout the 50 States.Due Process is established "arbitrariously" by US Courts, NOT in the rest of the 50 States, which is Constitutionallt BINDING.We Lack Political Power, and our PEOPLE CANNOT DECIDE THEIR WILL with OUR VOTES, Congress takes our DECISIONS. IBELIEVE IN EQUALITY... "We the PEOPLE of the United States of America were Created EQUALS....." Let the People of Puerto Rico, C0-Citizens, DIRECTLY VOTE in a Plebiscite, wether they want to become the 51 State of OUR Nation or Noy. This is the Right of Self-Determination.......

[El Loco]

Wow Gerardo, get your facts straight. First, D.C. did not become a "territory" in 1898. D.C. was founded in 1790 and was never intended to be a state.

Being Disenfranchised and under the Sovereignity of the US Congress is a CRUEL example of Lack of Democracy.

To be disenfranchised you need to be "enfranchised" first. Puerto Rico has never been enfranchised.

We pay some Income taxes, Social Security, federal unemployment and disability. We CANNOT pay other federal Income Taxes due to a "Congressional Act", that prohibits us to pay them.

"We" don't have an obligation to pay income taxes unless you are a member of a very limited group of people. The overwhelming majority doesn't pay Federal income taxes. And no, we don't pay other taxes because of that little thing called "taxation without representation."

We CANNOT Vote for our COMMANDER IN CHIEF and PRESIDENT, but have to PROTECT the Same Liberty and Civil Rights that the Rest of our CO-CITIZENS enjoy throghout the 50 States

Hate to break it to you but nobody votes for the President. People vote for state electors who, in turn, vote to elect a President. The power to elect the President is given to the states not to the people in the states. That's why all the so-called discriminatory & equal protection arguments to allow Puerto Ricans in P.R. to vote is doomed to fail. If you're not a state, you have no role in electing a President.

Due Process is established "arbitrariously" by US Courts, NOT in the rest of the 50 States, which is Constitutionallt BINDING.

I have no idea what you're talking about here, so I'll pass.

We Lack Political Power, and our PEOPLE CANNOT DECIDE THEIR WILL with OUR VOTES, Congress takes our DECISIONS.

This is a failure of the pro-statehood and pro-independence movements in Puerto Rico that have not been able to articulate their vision so as to persuade people from continuing el ELA. If the colonized people have no desire to brake their shackles, the colonizer isn't going to do it for them.

Let the People of Puerto Rico, C0-Citizens, DIRECTLY VOTE in a Plebiscite, wether they want to become the 51 State of OUR Nation or Noy. This is the Right of Self-Determination.

Wrong. The People of Puerto Rico should be asked what non-territorial status they prefer: statehood, independence, and free associated republic. They deserve the right to vote for whatever future they choose. I happen to support statehood. But I would be happy to see P.R. pick either of the other alternatives.