Vacillation: Old and new

There’s healthy discussion over indigenous land and who can vote for its disposition. It’s a tale of the vacillation between the old versus new rules of the game used interchangeably, whichever is convenient.

Some simply refuse to acknowledge the change in the rules of the game that descended in these isles since 1978. There’s the flip side: the position that it’s high time to relinquish total ownership to privately owned land. It means ending the dictates of current constitutional provision where 50 percent of what’s yours is simultaneously owned by the local government. It’s yours but must seek permission if you have plans to dispose of it.

The well-intentioned land alienation provision was justified then. Its purpose was to prevent the exploitation of indigenous land by huge corporations from the West Coast. This justified suspicion never occurred. There’s hardly, if any, investments from the West Coast even to this day.

Some employ strict interpretation of Article XII as though it is absolute. The same view is held on a subsequent provision limiting who can vote on land disposition. And we often employ the old TTG citizenship mindset if only for the feel-good sentiment it provides, though legally situated in marshland. We equally ignore the fact that since 1986, we all became U.S. citizens. Since that day in 1986 the responsibility of citizenship kicked in, whether we like it or not.

There’s no more room for purposes of vacillating between “what was” versus “what is” on the new rules of the game. In fact, there’s nothing in one’s warped notion of sovereignty that guarantees justice to all U.S. citizens and those legally situated in the NMI. This archipelago is Americana! The equal protection clause applies here. And there’s only one room left to begin the learning curve as citizens of the US of A: Let’s begin by studying the supremacy of laws, specifically the equal protection clause under the U.S. Constitution.

The supremacy of laws simply means that the U.S. Constitution reigns supreme over all state and territorial laws. It means that the suspect provision under our constitution on land alienation and the limitation imposed on who can vote for it is at best subservient to the rights of citizens under the U.S. Constitution. Furthermore, the Covenant included an acknowledgement of the supremacy of laws voted overwhelmingly by 78-plus percent of our people.

Indeed, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld the intent of Article XII. The basis of that decision is on the cultural ties of land and our people and the need to prevent any form of exploitation during the incipiency of our government 30 years ago. Most, if not all, of the justices aren’t aware that these provisions have outlived their usefulness. I further venture to say that if the limitation on voting on the disposition of land were challenged, it wouldn’t last a day in federal court. Both provisions are race based (today) and would have seen their final interment if litigated.

If our political relationship is one of semi-independence as is the case of the Republic of Belau or the Federated States of Micronesia, then perhaps we stand some warped chance to dictate the fate of our land according to our jungle rules. That we are a permanent part of the U.S. naturally means that all must follow the inevitable: the rule of law! Our country is governed by the rule of law. She has a rich history of protecting landownership beginning with the arrival of the Pilgrims more than two centuries ago. It is the very foundation that led to the building and strengthening of the most powerful economic foundation and pillars the world over.

With this mind, the founding fathers of the U.S. Constitution signed the sacred document honoring a citizen’s rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. One of the major derivatives is the right to own property. The legal history of the right of citizens to vote being upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court was fully explained by Mr. Howard Willens, a superb constitutional lawyer with over 50 years of experience. He’s done us a favor so that we don’t engage in slamming our foot into our mouth in the near term. Let’s begin by learning “what is” and forever bid adios to “what was”. And if you still have doubts, may I respectfully refer you to Section I of the Covenant Agreement and be guided accordingly.