tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8822994319220795886.post8903468358674248037..comments2023-07-04T19:10:13.362+10:00Comments on Saipan Writer: 340. On the Amicus Brief in the Federalization LawsuitSaipan Writerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10030098267460841286noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8822994319220795886.post-37951456352786121602009-03-16T09:16:00.000+10:002009-03-16T09:16:00.000+10:00Great comment, savior-cynics-naif. I agree in many...Great comment, savior-cynics-naif. I agree in many respects, but not all.<BR/><BR/>The Covenant is an interesting document. I think it is both a bilateral agreement--clearly meant as such--and a public law. It's not JUST a public law because at the time of its enactment, the US Congress did not have authority to legislate for the CNMI, which was part of the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands.<BR/><BR/>By its terms, certain provisions cannot be changed by the US Congress without CNMI approval. This would not be the case if it were just a public law.<BR/><BR/>But none of that answers the question of whether the US has the power and authority to enact laws relating to immigration here. The answer is clearly yes, it does. The Covenant clearly anticipates that the US Congress will do so. <BR/><BR/>The Covenant also gives the US the duty as well as the power to protect our borders against invasion and war and other external threats. Clearly the US has power to make laws that relate to border control--i.e. immigration.<BR/><BR/>The issue of a substantive element to the guarantee of the right of local self-government is another issue. That right extends only to "internal" affairs. It does not come into play in the US enacting laws that relate to matters for which they clearly have both a duty and the power to address.<BR/><BR/>And the Covenant drafters, in their "legislative" history, make it clear that the guarantee of the right of local self-government is to provide to the CNMI the SAME right as enjoyed by the several states. Whether this contains a substantive element or not may be debated endlessly. But a better analysis would be whether the US could pass such a law for the several states--if yes, clearly the US can enact the legislation for the CNMI.<BR/><BR/>If not, the Covenant includes the requirement that the CNMI be named specifically. Whether more is needed could be addressed in further talks between the CNMI and the US (under the Covenant). Or in court, in cases that deal with truely "internal" matters.<BR/><BR/>While I think there are fine distinctions and possible lines of inquiry that may lead to different results in some instances, depending on how you interpret these issues, in the current litigation, I think NONE of them make a difference to the outcome.<BR/><BR/>Handling immigration is not an "internal" matter over which the CNMI has local self-government rights. Protecting the border is not an "internal" affair over which the CNMI has local self-government rights. Employment of "alien workers" is not an internal affair over which the CNMI has local self-government rights.<BR/><BR/>Clearly, the US could (and does) legislate about these matters for the several states. The CNMI does not have greater rights to local self-government than the states.<BR/><BR/>jmho.Saipan Writerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10030098267460841286noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8822994319220795886.post-6336871701617236492009-03-14T22:06:00.000+10:002009-03-14T22:06:00.000+10:00The Covenant is not a treaty. It is not a bilater...The Covenant is not a treaty. It is not a bilateral agreement. It is a Public Law. It can be amended or repealed by the U.S. Congress.<BR/><BR/>For the sake of argument, even if the Covenant is a bilateral agreement, the Covenant negotiators signed it and the CNMI's voters approved it. They expressly authorized the eventual extension of immigration law to the Commonwealth. They knew that immigration control would affect the economy; that is why they negotiated for language that did not immediately apply immigration and wage laws. <BR/><BR/>If the CNMI prevails in its argument, the Covenant is meaningless as any kind of "agreement." The CNMI will truly be the place where "a deal is never a deal." Having reaped the benefits of political unity with the U.S., not the least of which is hundreds of millions of dollars in aid received, the governor and his team now argue that the Covenant means what the CNMI wants it to mean at any given moment in time.<BR/><BR/>The indigenous rights group, for its part, spits on the collective political will of its own people. They must think 80% of their own people are children that need them (with their superior wisdom) to overrule their people. Sounds an awful lot like the paternalism they accuse the U.S. of. And what do they seek? Veto power over Congressional enactments designed to wean the CNMI off its addiction to cheap labor? Undoing the preference local people are supposed to have for jobs that pay a decent wage? <BR/><BR/>You can dress it up with flowery language and legal cites all you want; what is being defended is the CNMI's "right" to whore itself out to the Willie Tans of the world, at the expense of local families. Fitial, Rasa, Willen and the rest, are just bagmen for the chosen few who benefit from the current system.<BR/><BR/>As to the contention that there has to be a substantive element to the self-government guarantee, why should the CNMI get more substantive rights attached to its self government than the people in the 50 States? People in the States don't get to argue for "substantive fairness" when the Congress votes to authorize funding for pointless foreign wars, or multi-billion-dollar defense boondoggles. Mainlanders don't get to argue that the "consent of the governed" has not been obtained when the Congress passes the Bailout bill for the banks. U.S. voters would get laughed out of court if they argued for "substantively" more sensible CAFE standards for autos, or for protection of beaches from offshore drilling. Their sole recourse is through their elected representatives. They can get involved, lobby, organize, persuade those representatives to vote for more fair and reasonable policies, or failing that, they can "throw the bums out" and elect new ones.<BR/><BR/>The CNMI now has an elected representative. The sooner we all get with the program and stop the infantile lawsuits, the sooner we can work with Kilili to solidify the new law's benefits, and seek clarification or remediation of its harms.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8822994319220795886.post-12360914898418155252009-03-13T11:13:00.000+10:002009-03-13T11:13:00.000+10:00Very informative.. far too intellectual for my chi...Very informative.. far too intellectual for my chiming in.Lil' Hammerheadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11937533318872228053noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8822994319220795886.post-38461705360795794362009-03-12T14:51:00.000+10:002009-03-12T14:51:00.000+10:00SW used the word disingenuous, which describes Hor...SW used the word disingenuous, which describes Horey and O'Conner.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8822994319220795886.post-49145561642499641342009-03-12T09:07:00.000+10:002009-03-12T09:07:00.000+10:00Anon--I'm not surprised it Jed's writing. It's rea...Anon--I'm not surprised it Jed's writing. It's really good.<BR/><BR/>In this instance, I don't think the brief suffers from the review of analysis of the past historical underpinnings of the Covenant. This brief does not argue for "international" law in lieu of US Constitutional law.Saipan Writerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10030098267460841286noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8822994319220795886.post-60129367527401851632009-03-11T19:24:00.000+10:002009-03-11T19:24:00.000+10:00The writing you admire so much is primarily that o...The writing you admire so much is primarily that of Jed Horey.<BR/><BR/>The application of international law is convenient when domestic law is unsatisfactory, but cannot override the U.S. Constitution and laws. As a matter of federal law, its limited persuasive authority is minimized by our own positive law and case law.<BR/><BR/>That is the big problem with all the folks who want to bring in United Nations this and treaty-like that. There is no "there" there.<BR/><BR/>The relevant law is that of the United States, and Jed's creative attempt to bring international law into the mix -- attempted by Larry Hillblom and Bob O'Connor for decades -- has been unavailing in federal courts from the Interior IG tax case through the submerged lands case and many others before and after.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com