To be or not to be ‘real’: That is the question

Mr. Jesse Torres’ letter to the editor and the comments that followed thereafter prompted me to provide some insight into island residents’ inability to vote for the U.S. president.

Our inability to vote for a U.S. president is not a legal matter but a “political” one. The two respondents’ inferences about insular territories not paying U.S. taxes as a justification for not participating in the presidential electoral process is a bit exaggerated since the U.S. Constitution makes no mention of paying taxes as a prerequisite to voting for president of the United States.

The 24th Amendment, Section 1 states that: “The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President…shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay poll tax or other tax.” In addition, there are over 43 million American citizens in the United States who do not pay or contribute to the federal tax system.

The U.S. Constitution also does not grant American citizens the right to vote for President. Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution provides: “Each state shall appoint, in such a manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of Electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which States may be entitled in the Congress…Electors appointment by the States elect President and Vice President.”

The common argument for our inability to participate and vote in U.S. presidential elections is that the CNMI, Guam, Puerto Rico and other insular areas are not states. Theoretically this would be true but the 23rd Amendment, Section 1 enabled citizens of Washington D.C. to appoint electors who would “be considered, for the purposes of the election of President and Vice President, to be electors appointed by the State…”

For those who are not aware of it, Washington D.C. is not a state. Although the citizens of the District of Columbia participate in the presidential and vice presidential electoral process, they too, like the CNMI and other insular areas, have a non-voting delegate in the House of Representative and no U.S. senator.

The stateside writer from Washington D.C. also lamented two points regarding the federal assistance that we as insular territories receive in comparison to other states and our CNMI land alienation rights. The title of his letter, ‘Real’ Americans pay U.S. taxes and prohibit race-based rights, was as divisive as his analogy about Mr. Torres and other locals having an 8th grader’s insight into American politics.

First, it’s a common practice for detractors to focus attention on the amount of federal monies insular territories receive in comparison to the states. Let’s deviate from insular territories and redirect our attention to where “real Americans” have been focusing their attention on—Iraq! Iraq receives more federal monies than all insular areas combined. To be specific, Iraq receives the most federal financial assistance topping over $100 billion while recording an amazing over $80 billion surplus. This amount does not take into account the millions of dollars other foreign countries receive from the United States.

Second, laws granting land alienation have prevailed in equal protection challenges (Wabol v. Villacrusis 958 F. 2d 1450 9th Cir. 1990) in federal courts. Courts saw justifications in the constitutionality of the land alienation laws since they played a crucial role in preserving CNMI, American Samoa and American Indians’ unique indigenous cultures.

The people of the CNMI, as with other insular areas, are but part of the over 4 million people faced with the grim fact that, in choosing a Commonwealth status or remaining with the status quo (Guam), we had in essence sealed our fate with an “indefinite” colonial status under the control of the U.S. Congress.

We must be cognizant that the CNMI and other insular areas will always have critics but we must maintain a steadfast approach in achieving a more defined or better political status that addresses and fulfills the needs of the citizens of each territory.

Justice Harlan in a dissent wrote: “The idea that this country may acquire territories anywhere upon the earth, by conquest or treaty, and hold them as mere colonies or provinces—the people inhabiting them to enjoy only those rights as Congress chooses to accord them—is wholly inconsistent with the spirits and genius, as well as with the words, of the Constitution.”
[B] Danny Aquino Jr.[/B] [I]Susupe, Saipan[/I]