Talk:Political status of Puerto Rico/Archives/2010/December

Article content moved here 2010-11-29

I have moved the following here from the talk page:

In a recently released First Circuit Court of Appeals case, Igartúa v. United States, No. 09-2186, Nov. 24, 2010, two of three members of the 3-judge panel that dismissed the appeal on procedural grounds suggested that, in an ''en banc'' reconsideration, the United States could be required, under the current status, to extend full voting representation to the United States citizens residing in Puerto Rico if (1) the en banc Court determines that, contrary to current Circuit precedent, the Constitution does not prohibit extending such rights "under another source of law", (2) that the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which , at Article 25, states that "[e]very citizen shall have the right and the opportunity...[t]o vote and to be elected at genuine and periodic elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage", is self-executing.

this supporting source was cited.

I don't speak Spanish, so I looked at a translation to English by google. FWICS, the cited source does not support the article assertion. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:56, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

The only free online source I could find regarding the Circuit Court decision, issued late last Wednesday was the newspaper article. I have since found the opinion text in the First Circuit's website, so I'm reposting with that cite which allows anyone to verify what I wrote. Thanks. Pr4ever (talk) 02:03, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I share the following final quote quote from Judge Lipez' concurrence. He and dissenting Judge Torruella would have the full Circuit Court reconsider en banc holdings made in the Igartúa III case, the current case being Igartúa IV:

"I am saying only that, if the plaintiffs succeed before the en banc court on the threshold issue of the Constitution's reach, they would be entitled to reconsideration by the en banc court of the ICCPR's status. That is so because the 2005 majority improperly rejected the plaintiffs' claim that the treaty is self-executing without conducting an independent analysis of its language and, if the language is unclear, the "'postratification understanding' of signatory nations" and other surrounding circumstances. Even if we were to find that the treaty is self-executing, however, difficult questions would remain. Among them are whether the treaty's provisions in fact oblige the United States to provide all of its citizens the right to elect voting members of the House of Representatives and whether the treaty provides for a private right of action as a vehicle for pursuing that right. Also of consequence is the unique political relationship between Puerto Rico and the United States government. Whether a generally stated commitment to provide the right to vote to all citizens should supersede the specific political negotiation that has led to Puerto Rico's status is not an easily answered question. The fact that the questions are difficult, however, is not a reason to avoid them....Unquestionably, the plaintiffs face a series of hurdles in demonstrating their entitlement to declaratory relief. Their claims are much more potent, however, than Chief Judge Lynch's opinion acknowledges. If the Constitution permits extension of voting rights to Puerto Rico residents by means of a treaty, and if the ICCPR is a self-executing treaty whose terms support assertion of a private cause of action, the plaintiffs' claims could not be so easily dismissed. At its core, this case is about whether a substantial group of United States citizens should be given a right that our country and the international community agree is a fundamental element of a free society. Article 25 of the ICCPR states, in relevant part, that "[e]very citizen shall have the right and the opportunity . . . [t]o vote and to be elected at genuine periodic elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage." (Emphasis added.) At a minimum, given the importance of the issues and the evolving debate, fairness dictates that the plaintiffs' claims receive considerably more deliberation than our panel is authorized to provide. The entire court should be engaged in considering and resolving these issues, with the best advocacy available in support of all parties. Indeed, as a case "involv[ing] a question of exceptional importance," this action fits squarely within the guidelines for en banc review. See Fed. R. App. P. 35(a) (2). Thus, while I agree that the district court's judgment must be affirmed by the panel, I urge the court to reconsider the constitutional and treaty issues in a new en banc proceeding."

If the Insular Cases are Puerto Rico's Plessy v Ferguson, Igartúa IV is starting to look like Puerto Rico's Brown at an early, pre-Supremre Court stage of the process. Pr4ever (talk) 02:20, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm concerned that the article assertion as it stands appears to be original research. The newly cited source is a primary source, about which WP:OR states policy saying, in part, "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source." The article assertion appears to be interpretation of what the source says and, to my nonspecialist reading, an incomplete and possibly incorrect interpretation.

One apparent problem I see is that the article assertion says, "the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), [...], is self-executing", but Judge Lipez says on page 43 of the cited source "Again, I do not want to suggest that I have reached an ultimate view on whether the ICCPR is self-executing." I'm a non-lawyer, and there may be other problems which I don't see. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:45, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

• I moved the content in question out of the Insular Cases section as it has nothing to do with ICs. The WP:OR etc, debate is not affetced by this move and it can continue unaffected. Mercy11 (talk) 04:08, 2 December 2010 (UTC)