Constitutional Resolution Returns Through The Delegate – Will The Convention Reconvene?
Document states that unless Convention reconvenes and addresses Congressional concerns "then there will be no referendum of approval or disapproval of the proposed constitution by the voters of the Virgin Islands, and this process ends.”
The Draft Constitution crafted by the Fifth Constitutional Convention is coming back to the Virgin Islands – but not as originally expected.
Reports now are that the Joint Resolution passed by the Senate last week will not be transmitted with the signature of President Barack Obama – but will be returned to the Territory through the office of Delegate to Congress Donna M. Christensen.
Additionally, the joint resolution apparently was not the result of debate and discussion by the joint houses of the US Congress, but of collaboration between the Delegate, US Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), Governor John P. deJongh, Jr., and counsel for the Fifth Constitutional Convention Douglas Brady.
To our knowledge, no other convention delegates participated in or were consulted during the formation of the resolution.
In the statement he gave before the Senate, Bingaman said, “The approach taken in this resolution to respond to the Federal concerns raised with the proposed constitution has been reached in consultation with counsel for the Virgin Islands Convention, and with the Delegate and Governor of the Virgin Islands. While there were differing views on how Congress should proceed, I appreciate the cooperation and commitment of all involved in working out this consensus approach.”
It goes on to say that the resolution outlines a process “to provide for the reconsideration and revision of the proposed constitution of the Virgin Islands to correct provisions that are inconsistent with the U.S. Constitution and Federal law. More specifically, the resolution would amend P.L. 94-584, as amended, to provide that Congress may urge the convention to reconvene, but following reconsideration and revision of the proposed constitution, it would not be sent back to Congress for review.”
It was first believed that if the Constitution was sent back to the Territory for revision, that those revisions would have to follow the same path as the original document – from the Convention to the Governor to the President to the Congress and then back to the Territory for a vote.
That will not be the process, according to the resolution, which states, “Instead, the U.S. President would have 60 calendar days to provide administration comments to the Governor and Congress, and to publish those comments in the Federal Register. Then, the revised proposed constitution would be submitted to the voters for approval or disapproval.”
However, it states, if the Constitutional Convention “fails to reconvene, or if the convention fails to make revisions, then there will be no referendum of approval or disapproval of the proposed constitution by the voters of the Virgin Islands, and this process ends.”
The Delegate said in comments aired last week that her office will prepare a communication containing the resolution to be sent to the President of the Constitutional Convention, Gerard “Luz” James. She also said the matter of funding for the possible reconvening of the convention is now under the jurisdiction of the Department of the Interior. We are not aware of the amount of funds that will be requested if the convention chooses to reconvene or whether that amount will be granted.
We welcome direct input from any members of the Convention who would like to submit their comments or provide insight into the next steps for this document. At this writing, there are no updated documents on the matter on the Delegate’s website.
Meanwhile, the full text of the Bingaman statement is attached below.
jus soli or jus sanguinis is a continuing debate it even became part of the Justice Taney’s dissent that such citizenship is acquired by place of birth (jus soli), not through blood or lineage (jus sanguinis). Dred Scott v. Sanford, 60 U.S. 393 It is indeed interesting that the term “natural born” for the eligibility of the U.S. President was penned by Crucian raised and Nevis born Alexander Hamilton. the distortion by the V.I. Separatists as justification for some sort of nativity requirement is totally misplaced.
The fact is that this debate goes nowhere. Al Gore was not born in any of the “several states”! Neither was Barry Goldwater. Charles Evans Hughes (1862-1942) was a British subject at birth. President Chester A. Arthur was born in Canada of an Irish father, his citizenship unclear since he was before the 1868 ratification of the 14th amendment, which provided that any person born on U.S. Territory and subject to its jurisdiction was was considered a born U.S. Citizen.
Even more recently Michigan Governor George Romney (father of our next president) was born in Mexico from missionaries. Or why not look at a V.I. resident Lowell Weicker former Governor and Senator from CT ran for President and was born in Paris, France. Also Roger Colero was born in Nicaragua and appear on the ballot in 2008. In the case of Senator McCain or President Obama both raise legal questions. The U.S. Foreign Affairs Manual adds further confusion by that children born in the Canal Zone become U.S. *nationals* without citizenship”. This is now only the case in American Samoa. As far as President Obama is concerned IMHO where he was born, whether he was born in Hawaii or Kenya is to me a non issue….but the fact that his father was a British subject at the time of his birth he could technically not be a “natural born” citizen because his citizenship status at birth was governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948 even though his mother was clearly a U.S. citizen.
There have been in recent years several attempts to relax whatever restriction. One was to allow for Secretary of State Henry Kissinger to be eligible and even Republican Senator Orin hatch introduced a measure in 2003 calling for a Constitutional amendment for anyone who was a naturalized citizen for 20 years to be eligible.
My point here is at least some lawmakers in the mainland are looking forward. Unfortunately the separatist radicals in the V.I. are looking backward from a rut they need to have some help getting out of. There has never been a guarantee that good governance and decent rule is tied to nativity. Was not Jamaican president Edgar Seaga born in Brooklyn just like Ken Mapp. So many V.I. leaders, including Governor Luis were not born win the V.I. And there is the case of my Grandmother who was born on a ship crossing the Atlantic being disqualified by here place of birth….she never had any political aspirations but she would have made a better President that a whole bunch of these professional politicians as your grandmother would have as well.
The whole argument makes no sense and will be gone in the future of civilization.
http://www.hotel-online.com/news/PR2008_3rd/Aug08_DominicaEcolodge.htmp
This above is the reason why a native-born should be governor. Our uniqueness in this caribbean as a possession clearly distinquish our situation to any governor on the mainland. We are seperate and apart of the states. Therefore, we can look at our uniqueness similar to the president of the US rather than a mainland governor. Our territory competes with othe soverent caribbean nation in commerece, tourisom, health care and sports. How can we allow people who have no natural loyalty to our country govern us. They will share with their country of birth all our internal operation as to help them get the advantage in the caribbean in all of the above. Rosevelt David have business interest in his home St. Kitts and Nevis, David Jones in Dominica and maybe they are more. No matter how long they have lived here their interest is not of here.
Difference is Ken Mapp is an ansestral Virgin Islander. His great grandparents, grandparents and parents were born here, so your point on his part is not valid.
I disagree completely as there is no law, decree, or regulation that *makes* him dejure an ancestral Virgin Islands. This term is only a proposal to define or separate people who live here. It has no moment under the law….and unless such a matter is made law the description is meaningless. Perhaps someday we will have an Ancestral Czar where people from Taino, Irish, Danish, East Indians, Spanish, French and many other nations, who returned from whence they came, who have multiplied over 20 generations, can make such a claim if they wish. But that is not where the separatist are going….they want a narrow definition that they invented and now they are upset since few are buying into this sophistry. As of now the definition of an “Ancestral Virgin Islander” is part of a proposed Constitution which appears to be in serious trouble unless voices of reason prevail. But after listening to the petards of hate rhetoric on a few talk shows, logic and reason for the common cause may have tough sledding.
To Anonymous at 3:30p…since when is there a loyalty oath required beyond that of their citizenship oath. If that isn’t enough what is?
Maybe loyalty to the VI should be determined by the valor some police officers demonstrated after Hugo. Some, like officer Dexter Mardenbourough gave so much after Hugo that he was named by VIPD as a hero. Not all even those which much higher rank and one beating the drum for those they claim have special ancestral right could claim the same devotion to the people of St. Croix after Hugo. Dexter later gave his life protecting citizens of St. Croix. Yet not one police sub station will ever be named after him if these separatist have their way.
Now you tell me who is loyal by virtue of where they were born! I do know the good people of Frederiksted needed some help after Hurricane Hugo they never got.
It’s nothing like having the historial connection to your fore fathers land. Just like Albert Einstein and others who kept dual citizenship. We keep to our birth place rather than the residence we assume because of whatever reasons. Mapp parents instill in him the history and culture of their home which makes him unique to others, therefore he is unique and deserve the distinction of an Anseteral Native Born. Amen.
or……as they say in the “Big Apple”…”one a New Yorker always a New Yorker”!……or “You can take the boy out of the country but you can never take the country out of the boy…”
Ken Mapp is smooth and slick and a silver tongued fast talking super politician that if not elected is such a great salesmen BP needs him to smooth their Deepwater Horizon nightmare PR image and he could do it well. This is somewhat an acquired survival trait from NYC for “If you can make it there you can make it everywhere” even in the Virgin Islands. I like Ken Mapp….like me…he has all the answers to everything!
HE’S ONE OF US HOW DARE YOU COME TO BE LITTLE A BLACK BROTHER IN THE HOME OF HIS PARENTS. WHO THE HELL ARE YOU?
Pay no attention to Herb Boy. Don’t even answer the Moron. : )
Herb,don’t you ever tire of the sarcasm? What is it in your genetics that allows you to be so disgustingly obnoxious? Can’t you say whatever it is you have to say without being objectionable???
Why did you have to reference Mapp as being a ‘boy’ when the quotation is ‘you can take a man out of the country,but you can’t take the country out of the man’.Why? Is it the German in you?
Damn! Give it a rest man.
I did not refer to Senator Mapp as a boy. Read my post and you will see that my point is that he has a certain degree of New York “chutzpah” and that isn’t all that bad. I am sorry you took my reference the wrong way, perhaps on purpose. Either way I did not and never would refer to him as a boy. OK?
Herb there is no need to apologize about calling Mapp a BOY… It’s all relevant…
First of all,I did not PURPOSELY misinterpret your comment.That is NOT how I operate.
Secondly,I have re-read your comment and it is the first paragraph and the second quotation in particular,which,to me,comes across as being offensive.Had you used the words ‘man’ or ‘person’ instead of ‘boy’,we wouldn’t be having this conversation.Period.
It is the second paragraph in which you allude to Mapp’s ‘chutzpah’
and I have no problem with that.
Anyway,you say no offense was intended so I guess we’ll leave it at that.
Herb referring to any black man as a boy is the same as a Nazi referring to any black man as a monkey. Is Herb a racist?
Herb is not a racist!
Mapp is a boy…he is correct because it’s all relevant. Everyone in the Virgin Islands knows Mapp little dirty secret. Why should Herb be any different in knowing this dirty secret? Is it right to call Herb a racist because he knows the dirty secret? Who are the real racists? We white people also know the dirty secret. Why should we be treated any different for knowing?
Anonymous@11.a.m:
You are so pathetic!
The way Herb talks about non-white people it suggests If he were in Germany during World War II, he would have been a supporter of Adolf and a Nazi Storm-Trooper.
You have that wrong…..but if you are interested, one of the co-founders of Jet and Ebony magazines was an Afro-German born in Hamburg in 1926. His name Hans-Jurgen Massaqoui. His father was a Liberian diplomat and his mother was German. His autobiography “Destined to Witness” tells about about what it was like being a German born mulattoes and growing up in Nazi Germany, how he was never ever persecuted but frequently shunned, how he joined he insisted on attempting to join the Hilter youth, dated a German girl whose father was a member of the SS, later he enlisted in the German army but was refused. After the war he joined the U.S. 82nd Airborne as a paratrooper, obtained his U.S. citizenship and when on to school and studied Journalism at the University of Illinois under the GI bill. he became managing editor of both Jet and Ebony with many interviews with famed civil rights and political leaders. he made frequent trips to Germany and states Germany is still his homeland.
Read his interesting book as he was there and can tell you what life was like during the regime of the Third Reich.
On the qualifications of the U.S. President being natural born: Had Mervyn Dymally, born in Trinidad of Indian and African parents, and who had significant seniority in the U.S. House of Representative, become speaker of the House, and if either President Clinton had been impeached and Al Gore was not fit to serve, in the order of succession Dymally would have automatically become the U.S. President. Whether or not he would have been barred from taking the oath is a matter of great conjecture. I was fortunate enough to have met him and he IMHO would have made a good if not great President. My question still is, why should someone be barred from being a U.S. President based on where they were born? Hopefully the amendment to the U.S. Constitution by Senator Orin Hatch (R-Utah) will see the light of day soon.
We need to start planning to save our selves instead of wasting time being caught up in the noise that distracts us from the work “we” need to be doing. If we do not start planning those who live here will be faced with enormous challenges. If you don’t believe me, check out the links and connect the dots yourself.”
http://snardfarker.ning.com/video/empty-store-shelves-coming-to?xg_source=shorten_twitter
http://poorrichards-blog.blogspot.com/2010/07/25-warning-signs-of-hard-economic-times.html
http://blog.alexanderhiggins.com/2010/07/11/bp-gulf-oil-spill-photos-show-bp-real-reason-constitution-suspended/