Exploring The Constitution's Reach In New Territories

The question of whether the constitution follows the flag has been a topic of debate for over a century, particularly during the 1900 presidential race between Republican William McKinley and Democrat William Jennings Bryan. The discussion revolves around the concept of territoriality in American law and foreign policy, exploring how the expansion of American power has influenced its understanding of extraterritorial legal rights. Kal Raustiala's book, Does the Constitution Follow the Flag?, provides an insightful account of this evolution, examining the changing nature of borders and boundaries in a dynamic global context. The book delves into historical contexts, from post-revolutionary America to the Cold War and beyond, offering a timely narrative that sheds light on the complexities of territorial sovereignty and its implications for American empire-building.

Explore related products

Constitutional Law [Connected eBook with Study Center] (Aspen Casebook)

$95 $345

Territorial Politics and Secession: Constitutional and International Law Dimensions (Federalism and Internal Conflicts)

$137.16 $149

The Insular Cases and the Emergence of American Empire (Landmark Law Cases and American Society)

$25.62 $34.99

Territorial Disputes and State Sovereignty: International Law and Politics (Routledge Research in International Law)

$41.79 $54.99

Constitutional Law: Principles and Policies (Aspen Treatise)

$117.28

The Ways of Federalism in Western Countries and the Horizons of Territorial Autonomy in Spain: Volume 1

$219.99 $209

The evolution of territoriality in American law

The question of whether "the Constitution follows the flag" has been a topic of debate for over a century, dating back to the 1900 presidential race between Republican William McKinley and Democrat William Jennings Bryan. The discussion revolves around the evolution of territoriality in American law and whether the Constitution's legal protections extend to US territories.

In his book, "Does the Constitution Follow the Flag?: The Evolution of Territoriality in American Law," Kal Raustiala explores the history of territoriality in American law and foreign policy. He traces the evolution from post-revolutionary America to the Indian wars and overseas imperialism of the 19th century, through the Cold War and the globalization era, up to America's attempt to increase its extraterritorial power post-9/11. Raustiala highlights how the expanding American empire has resulted in diminishing legal limits of territorial sovereignty.

The Insular Cases, a series of US Supreme Court decisions, established a doctrine determining that the US Constitution does not fully apply to territories acquired through conquest after the Spanish-American War and the signing of the Treaty of Paris in 1898. This includes places like Puerto Rico, the US Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands. The Northern Mariana Islands, for instance, were explicitly exempted from certain constitutional provisions, such as the Equal Protection Clause regarding racial restrictions on land alienation.

The debate over the Constitution's reach beyond US borders has continued to be relevant in discussions about the rights of detainees held in Guantanamo and Bagram, as well as the federal government's ability to regulate foreign cartels, protect investors, and address environmental concerns. As American power and influence continue to grow, the understanding of extraterritorial legal rights has expanded, challenging traditional notions of borders and boundaries.

In conclusion, the evolution of territoriality in American law has been a dynamic process, shaped by historical events, imperial ambitions, and shifting power dynamics. The question of whether "the Constitution follows the flag" remains a subject of ongoing discussion and debate, with implications for American foreign policy, territorial sovereignty, and the rights of those within US territories.

The extraterritorial legal rights of the US

The concept of extraterritoriality in the US legal system has evolved over time, influenced by the expansion of American power and changing world politics. In his book, "Does the Constitution Follow the Flag?", Kal Raustiala traces the history of extraterritoriality in American law, from its origins in post-revolutionary America to the post-9/11 era. Raustiala highlights how the legal limits of territorial sovereignty have diminished as the American empire has expanded, and examines the changing nature of borders and boundaries in a globalized world.

One notable example of the extraterritorial legal rights debate is the case of Wabol v. Villacnisis in 1992, which addressed the extent to which constitutional protections apply to US territories. The Northern Mariana Islands, which became a Commonwealth in 1976, have a unique relationship with the US defined by a Covenant that exempts them from certain constitutional provisions. This case illustrates the complex and varying relationships between the US government and its territories.

The doctrine of the Insular Cases, established by a series of US Supreme Court decisions after the Spanish-American War, holds that the US Constitution does not apply fully to territories acquired through conquest. This doctrine has faced criticism and efforts have been made to reform the constitutional framework to address territorial relations on a non-colonial basis. However, it continues to directly affect the civil rights and political rights of millions of people living in US territories, including Puerto Rico, the US Virgin Islands, and Guam.

In recent years, debates around extraterritorial legal rights have also centred on the rights of detainees held in Guantanamo and Bagram, as well as the federal government's ability to regulate foreign cartels, protect investors, and address environmental pollution. These discussions highlight the ongoing relevance of territoriality and extraterritoriality in US law and foreign policy.

The role of the Constitution in defining US-territorial relationships

The question of whether the US Constitution "follows the flag" into new territories has been a subject of debate for over a century, dating back to the 1900 presidential race between Republican William McKinley and Democrat William Jennings Bryan. The debate centres on whether the Constitution and its protections apply fully to territories acquired by the United States.

The Democratic Party platform of 1900 declared:

> We hold that the Constitution follows the flag, and denounce the doctrine that [the federal government] can exercise lawful authority beyond it or in violation of it.

In contrast, others argued that normal legal rights and rules did not apply fully, or at all, to the new American possessions, and that sovereign borders did not align with constitutional borders. This debate has continued to evolve and persist, with scholars like Kal Raustiala examining how the expansion of American power and its understanding of extraterritorial legal rights have challenged traditional notions of borders and boundaries.

The Constitution's role has also been examined in the context of US-territorial relationships with foreign nations. For example, during the Bush administration, the question arose regarding the constitutional rights of detainees held at Guantanamo Bay. The administration argued that these detainees did not enjoy constitutional rights because they were held outside American borders, highlighting the ongoing relevance of the debate over the extraterritorial reach of the Constitution.

In conclusion, the question of whether the Constitution "follows the flag" remains a complex and evolving topic that shapes US-territorial relationships, both domestically with its territories and internationally with foreign nations. The Constitution's role in defining these relationships continues to be a subject of scholarly inquiry and political debate, with ongoing discussions about how best to respect the rights of those affected by these decisions.

Explore related products

Federalism and Decentralization: Constitutional Problems of Territorial Decentralization in Federal and Centralized States

$42.55 $55.99

Sub-State Governance through Territorial Autonomy: A Comparative Study in Constitutional Law of Powers, Procedures and Institutions

$132.49 $169.99

Some Constitutional Aspects of Territorial Expansion (Classic Reprint)

$29.27

Slavery and the Supreme Court, 1825-1861

$59.99

Territorial Governance in Southeast Asia (Constitutionalism in Asia)

$54.85 $60.95

Asymmetries, Courts, and Comparative Constitutional Law: A Dynamic Accommodation of Diversity in Divided Multi-tiered Systems (Studies in Territorial and Cultural Diversity Governance, 24)

$143

The Insular Cases doctrine and its impact on territories acquired through conquest

The Insular Cases refer to a series of opinions by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1901 about the status of U.S. territories acquired in the Spanish-American War. The term "insular" refers to islands administered by the War Department's Bureau of Insular Affairs. The decisions in these cases created a doctrine that allowed the United States to acquire and govern colonial territories.

The Insular Cases invented the distinction between incorporated territories and unincorporated territories. The incorporated territories were on a path to statehood, while the unincorporated territories might never become states. The newly annexed territories, including Puerto Rico, the Philippines, Guam, and American Samoa, were placed in the latter category. This distinction served as the basis for a racially motivated imperialist legal doctrine that sanctioned indefinite colonial rule over majority-nonwhite populations.

The doctrine of territorial incorporation established that the Constitution applied fully only to incorporated territories. As a result, inhabitants of unincorporated territories, even if they are U.S. citizens, may lack certain constitutional rights because they are not considered part of the United States. For example, the Supreme Court ruled that residents of Puerto Rico and the Philippines were not guaranteed a trial by jury, despite this being an inherent aspect of the United States Constitution.

The impact of the Insular Cases is still felt today, particularly in Puerto Rico, where the outcomes of these cases laid the foundation for the modern "political question" of Puerto Rican status in relation to the United States. The "'uncertainty'" created by the incorporation doctrine has allowed U.S. courts to discriminate against Puerto Rican plaintiffs on issues of individual welfare and entitlement. Additionally, the Biden administration has continued to rely on the Insular Cases to deny Puerto Ricans and other residents of territories benefits and rights such as Supplemental Security Income.

The Insular Cases have been criticized for providing a constitutional justification for colonialism and annexation of places not within United States boundaries. Legal scholars and practitioners have called for the overruling of these cases, arguing that they have led to a crisis of political legitimacy in the unincorporated territories. However, some argue that abolishing the doctrine of territorial incorporation will not significantly improve the status of U.S. territories, and that complete equality can only be achieved through statehood or independence.

The implications of territorial sovereignty for civil and political rights

The question of whether the constitution follows the flag has been a subject of debate for over a century, with the 1900 presidential race between Republican William McKinley and Democrat William Jennings Bryan consumed by this issue. The answer to this question has significant implications for civil and political rights, particularly in the context of territorial sovereignty.

The concept of territorial sovereignty refers to the idea that a state has sovereignty over a defined territory, and it is a fundamental principle of the Westphalian system of sovereignty. In the American context, the debate centres around whether the Constitution and its protections apply fully to territories acquired by the United States, particularly in the aftermath of the Spanish-American War and the signing of the Treaty of Paris in 1898. This debate continues to be relevant today, with the rights of detainees held in Guantanamo and Bagram, for example, being a central issue.

The Insular Cases, a series of US Supreme Court decisions, established the doctrine that the US Constitution does not apply fully to territories acquired through conquest. This doctrine has direct implications for the civil rights of the millions of people living in US territories such as Puerto Rico, the US Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands. By limiting their political rights, the Insular Cases doctrine reduces their ability to influence the laws that regulate them, perpetuating relics of colonialism.

The expansion of American power and influence, particularly in the post-9/11 world, has further complicated the issue of territorial sovereignty and its implications for civil and political rights. As the United States has increased its extraterritorial reach, the understanding of extraterritorial legal rights has also expanded. This has led to a blurring of the lines between sovereign borders and constitutional borders, with potential consequences for the extension of legal rights and protections beyond American territory.

In conclusion, the question of whether the constitution follows the flag has important implications for civil and political rights in the context of territorial sovereignty. The Insular Cases doctrine, the expansion of American power, and the changing nature of world politics have all contributed to a complex and evolving landscape where the application of constitutional rights and protections is not always clear. As such, the debate over territorial sovereignty continues to be a relevant and timely issue.

Frequently asked questions