Delegate Emanuel Provides Documents To Support His Position
The following text and documents were received from 5th Constitutional Convention Delegate Gerard M. Emanuel:
Attached are some documents that will conclusively verify the following:
1. Treaties which the U.S. has entered into are definitely part of the United States’ “supreme law of the land”, just as the U.S. Constitution is.
2. Treaties applicable to the Virgin Islands of the United States along with the provisions of the U.S. Constitution were intended by Congress and the V.I. Legislature to be taken into consideration by the constitutional convention delegates.
3. Treaties applicable to the Virgin Islands of the United States were intended by Congress and the V.I. Legislature to be considered as part of the “supreme law of the land”, just as the U.S. Constitution is.
4. The treaties that are applicable to the Virgin Islands of the United States, provide the legal and moral justification for special protections, considerations and treatment of the people of the Virgin Islands by the United States whenever said people are engaged in steps or processes leading to the attainment of greater self-government, autonomy and self-determination.
I have cited, explained and highlighted only short portions of the documents that verify the above herein. The full documents are attached in case interested persons wish to read them. One must have sufficient documentation and information to make sense of the meaning of these documents.
The attached documents are:
1. Public Law 94-584, dated October 21, 1976. This is the most relevant and applicable document passed by Congress which authorizes V.I. Constitutional delegates to take the supremacy of applicable treaties into account when drafting a constitution for the V.I.
The relevant passage of Public Law 94-584, is cited below:
“(b) Such constitutions shall -
“(1) recognize, and be consistent with, the sovereignty of the United States over the Virgin Islands and Guam, respectively, and the supremacy of the provisions of the Constitution, treaties, and laws of the United States applicable to the Virgin Islands and Guam, respectively,”
2. ARTICLE VI, Clause of the U.S. Constitution
This clause reads as follows:
“This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.
ARTICLE VI, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution makes treaties that the U.S. Government has entered into in effect part of the U.S. Constitution, or at least on the same legal level with the U.S. Constitution. Therefore, when we cite provisions of treaties applicable to the Virgin Islands of the United States, we are really citing the supreme law of the United States of America.
3. ACT NO. 6688
This act clearly shows that the Legislature of the Virgin Islands intended to support the view that treaties are to be considered by the constitutional convention delegates when drafting language in the local constitution, and also that the drafting of a constitution for the Virgin Islands of the United States is an act of self-determination.
The first passage supports the applicability of relevant treaties, because it cites the Public Law which made them applicable. The second passage views and supports the drafting of the local constitution as an act of self-determination, which is one of the fundamental and inalienable rights promoted in the applicable treaties which federal law, (i.e. PL 94-584) mandates that the delegates draft the constitution to be consistent with and to recognize the supremacy of.
The two passages referenced above are:
“WHEREAS, the congressional authorization for the Virgin Islands to establish a constitutional convention, the rights, duties and obligations of the convention, once established, and guidelines for the drafting of the proposed constitution, are set forth in Public Law No. 94-584, approved by Congress on October 12, 1976; and”
“WHEREAS, it is sense of the Legislature that the people of the Virgin islands continue to favor a constitution for the Territory as a significant step toward greater self-determination and autonomy in the Territory’s relationship with the United States Government, and that provision should be made by law for the election and convening of a new constitutional convention to that end; Now Therefore.
Be it enacted by the Legislature of the Virgin Islands:
SECTION 1. (a) Establishment and convening of the Fifth Constitutional Convention”
Two of the applicable treaties are the following:
1. The Charter of the United Nations (1945)
2. The Convention between the United States and Denmark (1917)
A relevant part of the United Nations’ Charter is attached. It is the following:
Chapter 11, Section 73A-E
Also attached are three U.N. Resolutions, which are the documents that activate the principles stated in the U.N. Charter. One cannot truthfully support the charter and simultaneously not support the General Assembly Resolutions which were democratically approved by a majority of the independent nations of the world. It is akin to supporting the roots and trunk of a tree, but not the leaves, branches and fruits thereof. Doing so is nothing short of ridiculous, contradictory and hypocritical. The Resolutions are:
1. 1514 (sections 1, 2 and 5 in particular are placed below.)
1. The subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation constitutes a denial of fundamental human rights, is contrary to the Charter of the United Nations and is an impediment to the promotion of world peace and co-operation.
2. All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
5. Immediate steps shall be taken, in Trust and Non-Self-Governing Territories or all other territories which have not yet attained independence, to transfer all powers to the peoples of those territories, without any conditions or reservations, in accordance with their freely expressed will and desire, without any distinction as to race, creed or colour, in order to enable them to enjoy complete independence and freedom.”
2. 1541 (The relevance of this resolution to the USVI has been accepted by the U.S. for many years. It is attached to the end of this message)
3. 35/118 (Sections 2, 3 and 8 in particular are relevant and are placed below.)
2. Member States shall render all necessary moral and material assistance to the peoples under colonial domination in their struggle to exercise their right to self-determination and independence.
3. Member States shall intensify their efforts to promote the implementation of the resolutions of the General Assembly and of the Security Council relating to Territories and countries under colonial domination.
8. Member States shall adopt the necessary measures to discourage or prevent the systematic influx of outside immigrants and settlers into Territories under colonial domination, which disrupts the demographic composition of those Territories and may constitute a major obstacle to the genuine exercise of the right to self-determination and independence by the people of those Territories.
I hope that the above proves to be educational and serves to clarify what the parameters of the constitution really are pursuant to both the Federal and local enabling legislation.
Respectfully,
Gerard M. Emanuel, Delegate
Fifth Constitutional Convention
Supporting Documents: 1) Public Law 94-584 (full text) – 2) Act # 6688 – 3) UN Resolution 1514 – 4) UN Resolution 1541 – 5) UN Resolution About Outside Settlers
Loading ...
Honorable Delegate Emanuel:
Let me first applaud you for providing the documents for public consumption. The information does clarify what are the parameters by which our constitution must be crafted;however the Public Law does not specify which treaties are applicable. You have concluded that the United Nation Charter applies and have presented your opinion as facts. If all your assertions are correct, why do the two convention attorneys say otherwise?
Further, although the United Nation is a treaty, it does not address the issue of creating a constitution and does not even mention these terms, “Virgin Islands” and “natives.” My analysis of this treaty leads me to conclude that it has no relevancy to drafting a VI Constitution.
Why do you stubbornly ignore the legal advices from the experts. They have a law degree & years of legal experience. Why pay the convention attorneys if you do not have confidence in them. Judge Edgar Ross have also told you that the constitutionality of the controversial clauses would be challenged.
I am not a legal expert, but neither are you. My interpretation of the language of the United Nations Charter tells me that it is applicable to situation where exploitation is taking place and democracy is absent. Surely, you could not be suggesting that this is the case in the VI. The VI is under the jurisdiction of the USA and we are free to elect our governor, senators & delegate to congress. We, the people, receive federal dollars & at this moment do not have the capability to be independent. As Holland Redfield said, it would be insanity to seek independence for the VI. How many natives do you hear clamoring for a change of political status for the VI?
Your task is to draft a constitution, not to write a “Declaration of Independence.” You are assuming that the majority of people wish to sever ties with the USA. Be mindful that , just like the USA, the VI is occupied by many immigrants & naturalized citizens. They come here because the economic opportunities are better here than their home.We, “Ancestral Native Virgin Islanders” came originally from Africa. We are no longer in slavery & are free to shape our destiny. The privileges & rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution should not be taken for granted.None of us is being oppressed;our President, Barack Obama, is black & his ancestors like ours are Africans.Why do you hate the naturalize citizens of the VI so much? That’s the perception many of them have. I’ve spoken with many of them, some teachers, and they are disappointed about how you would like them be treated as second-class citizens in the VI Constitution.
You are being contradictory when you speak of democracy. The VI society is composed by people from various places;the population is diverse. Why do you want special rights for natives & not respect the equal protection of the law as is written in Article XIV of the U.S. Constitution?
What is so terrible of having a truly democratic society?
Thank you for continuing the debate Ms. Petersen. You are a formidable debater, who thinks very logically. Your scientific background is evident in your writing. Thank you also for agreeing that international law or treaties are applicable to the constitution-drafting process. We are finally making progress toward consensus. However, it is clear that you do not see the relevance of these documents to the Virgin Islands since as you put it,
“…it is applicable to [a] situation where exploitation is taking place and democracy is absent. Surely, you could not be suggesting that this is the case in the VI.”
To the casual reader, your position might seem as a valid and factual assertion, but in reality, to persons who have studied and have some experience in this area, it is neither factual or valid at all.
1. I respectfully would like to suggest that the more I read your statements, it becomes clearer and clearer that you are not reading the U.N. documents properly, and that you may lack sufficient background knowledge of political science. The V.I. is definitely a colony, not in the classic sense where it is being exploited for its raw materials, but in the sense that it does not have any say in choosing the persons who have sovereignty over it, and because these persons and bodies can make decisions for the V.I. without having to consider our input. We have no voting representation in the highest legislative bodies in the U.S. Also remember that the V.I. was bought by the U.S as property, notwithstanding the fact that there were people living here for hundreds of years. The majority of Virgin Islanders did not voluntarily associate ourselves with the U.S. on equal terms. One does not buy a sovereign country without its consent. The V.I. was a colony under Danish rule, and it still is one under U.S. rule. The people of the V.I. had no say in the terms of the sale. Furthermore according to the Organic Act, [See Section 8, Subsection (c), of the Revised Organic Act of 1954.], which states in part,
“(c) The laws of the United States applicable to the Virgin Islands on the date of approval of this Act, …and all local laws…shall to the extent they are not inconsistent with this Act, continue in force and effect until otherwise provided by the Congress: Provided that the Legislature shall have the power…to enact new laws not inconsistent with any 1aw of the United States applicable to the Virgin Islands, subject to the power of Congress to annul any such Act of the legislature.”
The above makes it clear that Congress can annul any law passed by the V.I. Legislature. I do not care whose definition you use, the mere presence of the above clearly is colonial, and these are not the only indications of our colonial status. The world community considers the V.I. to be a colony. That is why it still is on the list of “non-self governing- territories” of the United Nations. A proper interpretation of “non-self governing- territory is that it is a colony. Unlike the U.S.V.I., the BVI controls immigration, but it is still considered a colony by the U.N.
Ms. Petersen, you seem to be unaware of the context that is supposed to be used when interpreting U.N. documents. One has to study and understand the history and applicability of the documents including understanding the meaning and scope of the phrases and terms used in these documents such as “dependent peoples”, “colonialism in all its manifestations”, “integrity of their national territory”, “subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation”, “non-self governing-territories”, “Administering Power”, “self-determination”, etc., in order to correctly interpret them and their applicability to the U.S. and to the V.I. That is why some wise persons have said that a little bit of knowledge can be a dangerous thing.
When you understand what the U.N. means by the above terms and phrases, you will clearly see how the documents and the principles stated therein are directly applicable to the V.I. The documents do not have to make specific reference to the V.I. or to “Natives” to apply to our situation. They apply to all “non-self-governing territories”. When the word “peoples”, or the words “dependent peoples” are used, the meaning is akin to the situation that V.I. Natives are in. If you doubt the veracity of what I am saying, you can contact Dr. Carlyle Corbin, who is the Convention’s expert consultant in this specific area for corroboration.
Let me provide one clear example. The Virgin Islands of the U.S. is a “non-self- governing-territory”. The U.S. government accepts this designation for the V.I. and for Guam, but not for Puerto Rico as is evidenced in the documents published annually by the U.N.’s Decolonization Sub-Committee. As such, all of the principles articulated in the documents I cited and in others as well, apply to the V.I. However, if one is unaware of the meaning of this designation, one will not recognize that the principles apply to the V.I. I suggest that you re-read Resolution 1541, (which is a link on this website), where the criteria for this term are specifically delineated.
Let us now deal with your statement about the convention attorneys. They never said that treaties are not applicable. Their position is that they are applicable, but that the U.S. may ignore any reference to international law as it has done in the past. I agree with the attorneys in this respect. My position however, is based on the consultant I mentioned before. You may not know that he assists us as well. He is Dr. Carlyle Corbin. He has been working in this field for over thirty years. He is an expert in international relations, and is world renowned for his acumen in this field. His services are constantly being requested by countries both in the Pacific and in the Caribbean, specifically on these issues. His expertise is therefore more relevant to this particular aspect of the constitutional drafting process than that of the attorneys. They are not the ones being requested to travel and provide expert advice to other U.S. territories about constitutional reform and the applicability of international law. However, their advice is valid and meaningful. Nevertheless, regardless of what we assume the U.S. may or may not do, Dr. Corbin’s position is that we need to follow the enabling legislation, which includes adhering to the principles stated in the U.N. Charter and its logical outgrowths known as General Assembly Resolutions. We were not elected to hypothesize about the sincerity of the U.S. We were elected to follow the law written by Congress-the complete law-not just the easy part of it, or the part we want or like to suit our purposes. All delegates took an oath to follow the U.S. Constitution and the enabling legislation, which both make reference to applicable treaties. We cannot ignore this fact. Thus my position is based squarely on following the plain meaning of the enabling legislation, which is clear in both PL 94-584 and in ACT NO. 6688 of the V.I. Legislature.
You and others keep stating that some of the things we are suggesting can only be realized if we are independent. That makes no sense if I follow your argument about the democracy and freedom we already possess. If a right is inalienable, that means that it does not depend on political status. All you have to be is a human being to be entitled to it. These are the rights on which we are basing the validity of the language in the constitution. One such right is self-determination, which includes the right of the people of the Virgin Islands to protection from having our territorial integrity and demographics adversely affected in a manner that skews or denies our right to choose or vote on our constitution or political status.
Self determination does not only mean choosing a political status. It also includes the processes that are preparatory to choosing a final political status, which in our case include drafting a constitution. As long as we are taking action to make ourselves less “non-self-governing”, this is clearly included in the scope and meaning of self-determination. (See resolution 35-118 about outside settlers, which is provided as a link to this website as well.) Also, there exist other treaties that I have not mentioned that are directly applicable to the V.I. when drafting its constitution. For example, Article 2 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights breaks down and reinforces the rights stated in the U.N. Charter, and clearly indicates that the rights we are seeking do not depend on the political status of a territory. This totally destroys the argument you and others are making that independence must precede the things we want to place in our constitution with which you disagree. Please read the citation below:
“Article 2
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.
Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political,
jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a
person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or
under any other limitation of sovereignty.”
This position is further supported in another applicable and relevant treaty that the U.S. is a signatory to, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, that the U.S. signed and approved. It was cited in the court case with Krim Ballentine, which attests to its validity. The Preamble, Article 1 and part of Article 2 are placed below with the pertinent portions highlighted.
Preamble
The States Parties to the present Covenant,
Considering that, in accordance with the principles proclaimed in the Charter of the United Nations, recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,
Recognizing that these rights derive from the inherent dignity of the human person,
Recognizing that, in accordance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the ideal of free human beings enjoying civil and political freedom and freedom from fear and want can only be achieved if conditions are created whereby everyone may enjoy his civil and political rights, as well as his economic, social and cultural rights,
Considering the obligation of States under the Charter of the United Nations to promote universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and freedoms,
Realizing that the individual, having duties to other individuals and to the community to which he belongs, is under a responsibility to strive for the promotion and observance of the rights recognized in the present Covenant,
Agree upon the following articles:
PART I
Article 1
1. All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
2. All peoples may, for their own ends, freely dispose of their natural wealth and resources without prejudice to any obligations arising out of international economic co-operation, based upon the principle of mutual benefit, and international law. In no case may a people be deprived of its own means of subsistence.
3. The States Parties to the present Covenant, including those having responsibility for the administration of Non-Self-Governing and Trust Territories, shall promote the realization of the right of self-determination, and shall respect that right, in conformity with the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations.
PART II
Article 2
1. Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to respect and to ensure to all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized in the present Covenant, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.
2. Where not already provided for by existing legislative or other measures, each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to take the necessary steps, in accordance with its constitutional processes and with the provisions of the present Covenant, to adopt such laws or other measures as may be necessary to give effect to the rights recognized in the present Covenant.
3. Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes:
(a) To ensure that any person whose rights or freedoms as herein recognized are violated shall have an effective remedy, notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity;
The above clearly allows us to address many concerns in our constitution. For example, if we have no say over who can come and live or buy land here, this has and will continue to adversely affect us and our children. One does not have to be independent to address this issue. American Samoa and the Northern Marianas, which are possessions of the U.S. have done this successfully without changing their status. If one wants to learn more about these things, one has to read the works of the recognized experts in the field. Stanley Laughlin, who used to work out of the University of Hawaii, is one such expert. When you read his writings, you will understand what I am saying.
Yes, as you say, I am not a legal expert. However, the legal experts may or may not be political or social scientists with strong backgrounds in this area. Remember, I studied under Dr. Paul Leary, who is considered an expert in these areas, and I worked for the status commission over 20 years ago, and drafted the Commonwealth Bill Option for the V.I., which included many of the things we would like to place in the constitution. I have also read and continue to read widely on this subject, including the relevant court cases known as the Insular cases. These were the Supreme Court cases cited by the Judge in the Ballentine case as well. In fact, these are some of the things I have taught both on the secondary level and at the university level. Therefore, although I cannot claim to be an expert, I am neither totally ignorant of what I write.
A Commonwealth is really still an Unincorporated Territory, but it has a locally drafted and approved Constitution that addresses the issues persons like Delegate Adelbert Bryan and I are seeking to address in this constitution.
Lastly, you fully well know that I do not hate the Naturalized Citizens. That is a very low blow. How does standing up for the rights of natives equate to hating others? That is such a quantum leap of fact and logic that it really does not even deserve a response. Our culture has a proverb which states that “PARSON CHRISTEN HE OWN CHILE FIRST.” You cannot condemn a person for looking out for the only unorganized ethnic group in the V.I. I cannot hate my relatives. If I were living in another island, I would be fighting for their native rights as well, just as many immigrants from other islands are supporting our quest. What you may not realize is that if we are successful here, the benefits will inure to persons in other islands, some of which are independent, but do not have proper native rights in their homeland. I have been informed that St. Lucia may be one such island. Persons from Great Britain allegedly have as many rights or even more rights than the natives. If this is true, then it makes sense to support our cause in order that it can be used as a valid Caribbean precedent to be used in redressing their plight. ‘A LITTLE BIT OF KNOWLEDGE IS A DANGEROUS THING.”
I would like to thank Mr. Michael Springer Jr. and you for the opportunity to expand upon and provide more detail and documentation in this blog. You can “Google” the documents I referenced if you doubt the veracity of the citations I have presented.
Respectfully,
Gerard M. Emanuel
Puerto Ricans are very nationalistic, yet their constitution does not require a gubernatorial candidate to be a Puerto Rican. Further, does it not seem ridiculous that the head of state, Barack Obama, could never be eligible to run for governor of the VI under its proposed constitution? Also, there is no U.S. possession or state with a native-born governor clause in a constitution. Is this a fact or not?
You are entitled to your own opinions & interpretations. Just because I do not agree with them, it does not mean I am misinterpreting the document. Besides, I am not the only person who thinks the United Nations Charter is not applicable to drafting a V.I. Constitution. There are only two delegates that I hear making reference to this treaty on a regular basis.
Mr. Emanuel;
I stayed up late one night while in Afghanistan, reading your response to Miss Petersen, whom I believe made some good points. Your facts were also eye opening. My questions to you are: Who do you recognize as the sole authority to approve/reject this document when finished? If all that is stated in the UN Charters and Resolutions are true and pertains to the US Virgin Islands, why then are outsiders allowed to write and vote on the said constitution. Those two processes are contradictory to everything in the UN Charters and Resolutions. Should outsiders be equally allowed to write and vote for the constitution then I believe that they should have equal rights to all other parts of the constitution. I believe that as a “Native” you should have first petition Congress or the UN to only allow “Natives” to be on the Constitutional Convention Committee, and at the same time only allow “Natives” to vote for approval or rejection of this document. Barring this, I feel Congress will not and should not approve any constitution which discriminate against bonified US Citizens.
Hi my former classmate Woodrow. Thank you for putting your life on the line for this country. It is always difficult to debate a veteran. I respect what you are doing, and sincerely wish you a safe return.
You were always smarter than us in class. That is why you were skipped in school. Your targeted inquiry reflects your brilliance. I miss the debates you used to have on Mario’s show.
I agree with you that ideally we should have petitioned Congress to allow only natives to vote and be on the convention before the process began. However, this is not an ideal situation and it was not done. Many of our leaders may be unaware of what our political status as an unincorporated territory really means and permits, and as such do not take the actions that ought to be taken by persons who are knowledgeable about these issues that are designed to protect the people of the V.I. from outside migration that disrupts our demographic situation and our cultural and territorial integrity. Most of our elected officials may not even know that treaties that the U.S. has signed are part of the supreme law of the United States just as the U.S. Constitution is. They do not even know which treaties apply and how they are applicable. You hear them and persons in the community arguing that what we are doing is violating the U.S. Constitution, but they have no clue what they are talking about, because the applicable treaties that we are citing, are equally a part of the U.S. Constitution, pursuant to ARTICLE VI of that document.
Because certain things were not done, does not mean that we should be penalized for this omission, or that what we are seeking is wrong because we did not do this. We were not in an official position to make these decisions.
Twenty years ago, I testified before the United Nations on this very issue when we were preparing for a status referendum. Before we were elected as delegates to the constitutional convention, I wrote a five-part series in the Avis that addressed this very issue. Finally, I spoke at two forums at UVI about these very issues before the election of delegates occurred. I received little support for these positions. I have done more than my share to get the message out.
It is never too late to do the right thing. You of all persons understand the validity of native rights. Most persons who hail from our sister islands have them and/or belonger rights in the islands of their birth. Their children will be entitled to native rights in the V.I. and belonger rights in the native island of their parent. If I were living on another island, I would be assisting the natives in achieving these rights if they did not have them fully.
We have learned that native St. Lucians have less rights in their country than British citizens, and that even though they are independent, they did not write their own constitution. If we are successful with our native rights’ quest, it would provide a solid precedent for them.
Woodrow, I can say much more, but at this point in our history, I believe that it is better to include everyone in the voting process-especially all native Virgin Islanders who live abroad, as was done for the Iraqi citizens living in the U.S. when they were voting on their constitution. I also believe that long-term residents, who have lived here for more than 10 years should also participate. It looks as though every regular voter who has been here for 90 days will participate in our act of self-determination in violation of international law.
No matter what documents or evidence or precedents I cite, some persons hold on to their positions irrespective of the compelling facts to the contrary.
We do not know what the officials in Washington will do with our document. We hope that they will take into consideration the full panoply of laws that the enabling legislation has mandated. Only time will tell.
Take good care of yourself.
I hope that you do not think that I believe that natives are better than you or that we purposely want to discriminate against others. This is the false backspin and sidespin that is being put on our actions. It is totally untrue. It is also not revenge. As Peter Tosh has eloquently said. He wants equal rights and justice. We cannot have any peace until the natives receive proper justice for what they and especially their ancestors have experienced in the Virgin Islands.
Respectfully,
Gerard
Delegate Emanual makes reference to United Nation’s Reolutions and jumps to the grand sweeping fallacy that these somehow are converted to treaties which trump the U.S.Constituion. Last time I checked the requirement for treaties is that the U.S. Senate must ratify each and every Treaty. U.N Resolutions don’t boil rice, as they say. Delegate Emanual come up with a fantasy that some committee and or the Security Counsel of the UN can make decision that could conceivably invalidate portions of the U.S. Constitution thus amending or changing it. “Nuttin Tall Go So”!
To amend the U.S. Constitution requires actions by the U.S. Congress and the ratification by 2/3 of the several state legislatures.
Where do you come up with this notion that a group of foreign diplomats can draft and pass U.N Resolutions that have any force of law or supremacy over the United States Constitution?
Gerard, to summarize: U.N. Resolutions do not a treaty make, period. Nor are there any treaties which trump the U.S. Constitution.
Mr Emanuel,
I must with Herb’s assessment of the legitimacy and power of UN Resolutions (on the domestic front). Joining the UN through Treaty does not mean that individual UN Resolutions have the force of treaties.
As Herb pointed out, there are constitutional requirements that EACH AND EVERY treaty must attain. Approval by the US Senate is one of them. The Resolutions you cite, therefore, are not treaties, nor can they be treated as such.
I can’t believe that you cannot see this. Under your argument, 50% plus one voting member of the UN could make laws that have the power of the US Constitution! If so, G.W. Bush would have been incarcerated a long time ago for his abandoning of UN policy (as it would be deemed as a defying of standing US constitutional Law). We would be in a lot of trouble if UN Resolutions had the power of law over here!
Gerard,I love you dearly & respect you for debating your issues so eloquently.However, you defy the voices of reason & logic. You are so blinded with passion that your judgement has been clouded. Love is blind! Emotionalism is being used to justify discrimination. Intellect ,wisdom, justice and compassion are your enemies.
A treaty is an official agreement between nations or entities.The U.S. Congress has the authority to enter into a treaty with a sovereign nation or with an international entity.Its authority to establish a treaty with Indians is explicit in the U.S. Constitution. The Native Americans have a treaty with the U.S. Congress and are exempted from property taxes while living on a reservation. They still have to uphold the supreme laws of the U.S.A. If a crime is committed on a reservation,only the perpetrator that is a member of the tribe is subjected to tribal justice. A Native American can not violate the U.S. Constitution or any federal laws;the Bill of Rights apply to all of them. They are U.S. citizens with the same rights as others. Since they were living on the land before the colonists arrived, they have been given special treatment or privileges that other U.S. citizens do not have. I guess this is reparation for their Holocaust.
Whether the U.N. charter is a treaty applicable to drafting the VI Constitution or not is debatable. You are making an assertion that it is . Facts are never disproved. It is useless to argue that 1 + 1 is not equal to 2. Your point that it is a treaty is sound, but you have not proven that this “treaty” is the one being referred to in the Public Law. The only treaty the law refers to is the Revised Organic Act of 1954. If the U.N. Charter is so valuable & relevant to us drafting our constitution, why was it not mentioned in the Public Law? The United Nations Charter is merely a promise made to comfort fools “idealists who actually believe powerful nations will not oppress people or attack defenseless nations.” If it is more effective or equally effective to the U.S. Constitution, why has it not been used to correct the injustices by America. Why is it necessary to form a status commission with only natives? If the United Nations is more powerful than the U.S.A., why not go to it to obtain independence for the USVI? Why advocate free association with the U.S.A. which you consider to be oppressive? Why not simply relinquish your U.S. citizenship status, since you consider yourself to be a second-class citizen?
Further, the United Nations Charter does not promote oppression. You, nevertheless, wish to oppress the Naturalized citizens by abridging rights that they presently have. The U.N. Charter speaks of democracy & the will of the people. There is no mention of native rights or special treatment of an indigenous population(You are not an Indigenous Virgin Islander and your African ancestors were brought to the land prior to the U.S. purchasing of the land from the Danes). The white people came to the land before the black people. The U.S. did not purchase the inhabitants in 1917, slavery was abolished long before the purchase. It is stupid to argue that the people were purchased. Is being a separate nation with free association with the U.S. your concept of buying our freedom?
If you want reparation, seek it from the Danish Government. Let the United Nations assist you with this endeavor. Conduct a poll to see how many people want to sever ties with the U.S.A. and abandon the rights & privileges of being an American citizen. If it is not a popular choice, why pursue a political status referendum? It would be an exercise in futility since most people have become spoiled by America. The federal monies that pour in to our educational system and wasted will not be granted if the USVI becomes independent. A colony is exploited by the Mother country. The residents of the USVI do not pay federal income taxes and receive abundant funds from the federal government. Who is being exploited? What do we import to the “Mother” country? Hovensa is not own by the U.S. government or the government of the VI;it is a private corporation.The USVI is not a colony;it is unincorporated territory with lots of benefits for the residents. All persons residing here presently have the same rights. Herb can not vote in a presidential election neither can anyone residing here. This is a privilege that is being denied based on our political status. It has nothing to do with the fact that you and I are natives or that the predominant population is black.Does the denial of this privilege to Herb make him a second-class citizen? If so, then all U.S. citizens here are second-class citizens. That’s equality.
A previous status referendum was not conclusive that the majority desires independence. Do you want independence and are willing to refuse federal funds? Do you want your “colony” to become a state, so that the “decolonization ” process could be completed? We could be eligible be to participate in a presidential election with an amendment to the U.S. Constitution, such as what occurred with the people of the District of Columbia. According to you,though, there are too many blacks here for it to be consider a state.The District of Columbia is not a state and the majority population is black. Why not fight for an amendment like the 23rd amendment? The chance of us being granted an elector is better than getting independence.
The constitution you’ve help to draft does not embody the equal protection of the law. How is it consistent with the U.N. Charter? Does the charter advocate discrimination & injustice? Was it a treaty made between nations on behalf of the “natives” of the USVI?
Your interpretation of the U.S. Constitution is warped. If you are using this document to support your position, please note the following clauses found in it: “The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes…but all Duties shall be uniform throughout the United States…To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations…and with the Indian Tribes…To establish uniform Rule of Naturalization…To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court..To make Rules for the Government…To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers….” Do you still think we are governed by the United Nations?
It is called the United Nations for a reason. The members make international laws;they represent the sovereign nations of the world. However,it does not have a militia or a body to enforce the agreement. It is not a single nation. Every nation has its own Supreme laws that are defended by the respective government. The international laws are constantly being violated because the violators know that will never be punished.When last you heard that the U.N. persecuted a country for wrongdoings?
You are being hypocritical and your views could be construed as racist. Please rethink your position before the flawed document is submitted to the governor. If you persist in forwarded such a ridiculous document to the federal government, you will be recorded in history as a fool to many. Be reasonable. Do you think that such a divisive document will go unchallenged. Even if it miraculously survives the scrutiny of the Congress and is ratified by the people in its original form, it will be entangled legally for a long time. It has created more controversies & social unrest that the preceding drafts.Do you want to have the legacy of a bigot?Search deep in your soul and conscience and tell me that you are are not punishing your own African brothers & sisters who have been naturalized so that they can enjoy the rights & privileges of a U.S. citizen.Tell me you are not trying to exact retribution against your “colonizers.” Tell me that you are not instead retaliating against the Naturalized citizens because they became Americans by choice.
My tax dollars paying for an “ancestral’s” property tax simply because (NOT I, MIND YOU) but my parents were born on another Island (beyond my control) = discrimination, plain and simple.
”Our Constitution…neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens.”
-The Honorable Justice Harlan in his dissent in Plessy v. Ferguson
Why should individuals have to pay for and subsidize the lifestyles of their peers simply because of where their ancestors are from?
We talk about the current “burden” on ‘ancestral natives.’ We hear that they were treated poorly many years ago (weren’t we all…)
What about the burden we are going to place on all non-’ancesrals’? We cannot solve the problem of discrimination and hatred with more discrimination and hatred.