Isabella Carter
The US Constitution has had a complex and often fraught relationship with its territories. Citizens in US territories face a number of constitutional challenges, including the denial of fundamental rights and privileges of citizenship. These include the inability to vote in presidential elections, the lack of a voting representative in Congress, and the withholding of constitutional rights to American citizenship from people born in US territories. The US Supreme Court has acknowledged that its decisions on territorial rights have been erroneous, and that the unincorporated distinction between territories is constitutionally erroneous and poorly reasoned. The question of constitutional citizenship for residents of US territories remains unanswered, and the vitality of the Insular Cases, which established the incorporated/unincorporated distinction, has been questioned by some Justices.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Citizens' rights | Citizens residing in the Territories are denied fundamental rights and privileges of citizenship: they cannot vote in presidential elections, they lack a voting representative in Congress, they can be denied (or provided less) federal aid, and they do not have an inherent right to govern themselves. |
| Congressional power | Congress has the entire dominion and sovereignty, national and local, and has full legislative power over all subjects upon which a state legislature might act. Congress may legislate directly with respect to the local affairs of a territory or it may transfer that function to a legislature elected by the citizens thereof. |
| Judicial power | The Supreme Court has acknowledged that "when governing decisions are unworkable or are badly reasoned, '[it] has never felt constrained to follow precedent.'" The U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico is the only district court in a U.S. territory, setting it apart from other unincorporated territories. American Samoa has no federal court, though Congress has granted its territorial high court federal jurisdiction over certain matters. |
| Constitutional citizenship | The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees citizenship to "all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." However, the interpretation of this amendment in relation to individuals born in U.S. territories is still debated. Residents of unincorporated territories are considered U.S. "nationals" rather than citizens, with the right to travel freely throughout the U.S. and abroad with a U.S. passport. |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
Citizens in US territories lack fundamental rights and privileges
Citizens in US territories face a number of challenges and are denied fundamental rights and privileges of citizenship. Firstly, they cannot vote in presidential elections and lack a voting representative in Congress. This means they have little say in the political process and are not fully represented in the democratic system. Additionally, they can be denied federal aid or receive less support than other states, as Congress retains broad plenary powers over the Territories.
Another key issue is that territories do not have the inherent right to govern themselves. This contradicts the fundamental democratic principle that citizens should choose their government and that the government's power is derived from the consent of the governed. The territories are subject to the governance of Congress and the executive branch, which can lead to a power imbalance and a sense of inequality.
The status of citizens in US territories has been a long-standing debate, with some arguing that they are "upon a very unequal footing" with other US citizens. The Supreme Court has acknowledged that the governance of these territories can be ''unworkable'' and ''badly reasoned'. The Court's reluctance to address the citizenship issue has transformed it from a judicial to a political question.
The specific rights that residents of unincorporated territories lack remain unclear. However, the legislative proposal put forth by Notre Dame Law Review suggests that the territories should be granted statehood to ensure equal political status with other states. This proposal does not challenge Congress's power to acquire or govern territory but seeks to address the paradox between the democratic principles the United States upholds and the reality of the situation in its territories.
The case of Puerto Rico is an interesting example. In 1966, Congress made the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico an Article III district court, setting it apart from other unincorporated territories. This led to the opinion that Puerto Rico had evolved from an unincorporated to an incorporated territory, and thus, its citizens should be afforded all constitutional guarantees. This evolution in constitutional status highlights the complexities and ongoing debates surrounding the rights and privileges of citizens in US territories.
The Haitian Constitution: Foundation of a Nation
You may want to see also
US territories do not have the right to self-governance
The United States boasts that it is a major nation without a "colonial empire". However, the UN has brought attention to non-self-governing areas, which has prompted Americans to review the conditions in their territories and island possessions.
The US territories do not have the right to self-governance. While they are self-governing in that they have three branches of government, including a locally elected governor and a territorial legislature, they cannot exercise full self-governance. Citizens residing in the territories are denied fundamental rights and privileges of citizenship. They cannot vote in presidential elections, they lack a voting representative in Congress, and they can be denied federal aid. Both Congress and the executive branch retain broad plenary powers over the territories.
The US territories are defined by the UN as "Non-Self-Governing Territories" whose people have not yet attained a full measure of self-government. The US territories, therefore, fall under the UN's Chapter XI, which states that the interests of the inhabitants of these territories are paramount, and it is a sacred trust to promote their well-being.
Despite this, the territories have been a permanent fixture of the American polity, and their political, social, and legal statuses have not progressed to be equal with their fellow citizens. The Insular Cases, which are Supreme Court decisions regarding the constitutional position of unincorporated territories, have been challenged as they are considered to be inconsistent with legislative practice and democratic principles.
The territories have been a part of the national mythology and everyday conversation, but they have since disappeared from the national discourse. The lack of political power in territories like Puerto Rico has resulted in them being treated as an afterthought by Washington.
Ohio's 1851 Constitution: Debt Limitations Established?
You may want to see also
The Fourteenth Amendment and citizenship rights
The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, specifically Section 1, formally defines US citizenship and protects various civil rights. The Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment states:
> "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
This clause repudiated the Supreme Court's decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), which held that Americans descended from African slaves could not become American citizens. The Fourteenth Amendment also overruled the discriminatory Black Codes of southern states, which restricted the movement, employment, self-defense, and legal rights of African Americans.
The Citizenship Clause has been interpreted by the Supreme Court in several cases, including United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), which confirmed that children born in the United States receive birthright citizenship, regardless of their parents' citizenship status. In Elk v. Wilkins (1884), the Supreme Court interpreted the Citizenship Clause as granting birthright citizenship to all born within the jurisdiction of the United States.
However, it is important to note that the Fourteenth Amendment has never been interpreted to extend citizenship universally to everyone born within the United States. There are exceptions, such as when a person's mother was unlawfully present in the country or when their mother's presence was lawful but temporary at the time of their birth.
The Fourteenth Amendment also includes the Privileges or Immunities Clause, the Due Process Clause, and the Equal Protection Clause, which protect various civil rights and prohibit states from abridging the privileges or immunities of US citizens.
The US Constitution: A Two-Party System?
You may want to see also
Explore related products
The constitutionality of US courts in territories
The Supreme Court has acknowledged that US courts in territories may not be considered "true United States courts" established under Article 3 of the Constitution. This was highlighted in the case of Balzac v. People of Porto Rico in 1922. However, in 1966, Congress transformed the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico into an Article III district court, setting it apart from other unincorporated territories. This evolution led to the belief that Puerto Rico had transitioned from an unincorporated to an incorporated territory, deserving of all constitutional guarantees.
The distinction between incorporated and unincorporated territories has been a pivotal aspect of legal debates, as seen in the Tuaua v. United States case, where the Court of Appeals relied on this distinction established in the Insular Cases. The Insular Cases refer to a series of Supreme Court decisions that addressed the constitutional status of unincorporated territories. However, the vitality of these cases has been questioned, with critics arguing that they are inconsistent with democratic principles and legislative practice.
The issue of constitutional citizenship in US territories remains unresolved. The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees citizenship to individuals born or naturalized in the United States, but the interpretation of "in the United States" regarding territories is contentious. The Supreme Court has allowed residents of unincorporated territories to be treated as US "nationals," with the right to travel, but their citizenship status remains unclear.
The varying judicial systems in the territories further complicate the matter. Territories like Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and the US Virgin Islands have federal Article IV courts, while Puerto Rico has a federal Article III court. American Samoa lacks a federal court, but its territorial high court has been granted federal jurisdiction over specific matters. These differences in court systems contribute to the complexities surrounding the constitutionality of US courts in territories.
Exploring the Constitution: A Guide to Reading and Understanding
You may want to see also
Congress's plenary powers over territories
The US Constitution grants Congress plenary powers over US territories. Plenary power is a power that has been granted in absolute terms, with no review of or limitations upon the exercise of that power. In the context of US territories, Congress has the entire dominion and sovereignty, national and local, and has full legislative power over all subjects upon which a state legislature might act. This includes the power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States.
Congress's plenary powers over US territories have been questioned and challenged on constitutional grounds. Some argue that the constitutional guarantees of private rights should apply to all territories, regardless of their incorporation status. The Supreme Court has acknowledged that its decisions can be erroneous and that it is not constrained to follow precedent.
One example of Congress's plenary powers in action is its authority over American Indian (Indigenous) affairs. Congress has been granted complete authority over Indigenous governments and affairs, which many Indigenous people view as an act of tyranny given their lack of representation in Congress. Another example is Congress's plenary power over immigration, which gives it almost complete authority to decide whether foreign nationals may enter or remain in the United States.
While Congress possesses plenary powers in certain areas, there are also limitations and conflicts over the definition of these powers. For instance, while Congress appears to have complete and absolute power regarding the declaration of war and peace, the President has control over the Armed Forces as Commander-in-Chief. These powers are in ongoing conflict, as seen by the War Powers Resolution of 1973.
In conclusion, Congress's plenary powers over US territories give it significant control and sovereignty over these areas. However, there are also limitations and conflicts surrounding the definition and exercise of these powers, with ongoing debates and challenges over their constitutionality.
Constitution Chapters: Kenya's Foundation Stones
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
Citizens of US territories are denied fundamental rights and privileges of citizenship. They cannot vote in presidential elections, they lack a voting representative in Congress, and they can be denied federal aid.
The doctrine that "federal constitutional rights do not automatically apply" to the Territories. Congress has full legislative power over territories and retains broad plenary powers over them.
The territories do not have an inherent right to govern themselves. This has resulted in territorial insolvency, which has implications for the United States, and disputes between local courts and federal courts of the territories.
In Limtiaco v. Camacho, the Supreme Court declined to defer to the Supreme Court of Guam's interpretation of a provision of its own organic act, citing implications for the United States. In Guam v. Guerrero, the Ninth Circuit Court rejected the Supreme Court of Guam's interpretation of Guam's Free Exercise Clause analogue, citing final interpretive authority.
