Capitol Hill Blue Forums Political Issues Constitutional Issues Taiwanese entitled to US constitutional rights

You are starting to cross your own posts among the many threads you have spawned. See the thread in which your comment was posted for the reply.

---I don't have sufficient legal background to challenge your case TC, but I notice that I got no response from YOU when I made
THIS VERY "REAL WORLD" OBSERVATION.

So if you're in the mood to complain about not getting a response, consider now that the shoe's on the other foot.

WHAT WOULD happen TC, if the United States actually TRIED to move on this? What do you suppose the REAL WORLD ramifications would be, who would gain and WHO WOULD LOSE.

It would be assumed that if any members of the United Nations had any "complaints" about the outcome of this court case (although I can't see why they would have) they could file their opposing or rebutting lawsuit in the appropriate tribunal (in the USA, Japan, or some international court, etc.), and/or ask for a Hearing in the United Nations, and/or have a protest march in some colorful city (perhaps in Rio de Janeiro??), or do whatever suited their fancy.

If they were unhappy with the outcome, perhaps they could terminate diplomatic relations with various western countries, resign from the United Nations, drop out of the World Trade Organization, etc.

Tc, given the distinction between rights, what rights do you think that the citizenry of Taiwan is entitled to?

I've tried in my responses here to distinguish between the threads. Here I am trying to address just the constitutional rights issues that are germane to this iteration. In the other thread I provided what I thought were rather lengthy disquisitions on my basis for disagreeing with the underlying theory of the case under international law. I will continue to endeavor to keep them separate.

At best, the theory expounded by the case, and by tc here, would result in the application of occupation law, not territorial law. In that case, domestic (to Taiwan) law would control the behavior of the residents, not U.S. law. None of the treaties, legislation, etc., expresses the intent of the United States to acquire Taiwan as a territory, incorporated or unincorporated. The assertion by the courts of U.S. jurisdiction would, as I believe Checkerboard expressed, lead to an international incident and conflict with China. That, however, will not occur, in my opinion, because the court will not find that Territorial Clause ("The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States[.] Article IV, Section 2) applicable and is exclusively within the authority of Congress and cannot be asserted by either of the other two branches.

So, you do not think China would be sufficiently angered by such a move that they would consider some form of economic punishment?
Do you honestly believe that, or are you allowing your passion
(which I respect and understand, by the way) to color your view?

I am convinced that China would immediately move to knock the foundations out from under the United States economy as a response, flooding our markets with the two trillion in US dollars that they currently hold.
In addition they would most likely cease purchasing Treasury bonds at the monthly auction, thus further cutting our access to credit to such dire levels that the very structure of the economy in this country would collapse entirely.

Circling back to the original post, the argument appears to depend for its foundation on "Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers General Order no. One".

http://www.taiwanbasic.com/civil/tcourt.htm

That source document, therefore, takes on extreme importance. In its relevant parts, it states that surrender is not to the United States but rather to:

As it relates to the current discussion, the document explicitly states: This is, in fact, the first specific directive in the General Order.

In reviewing other provisions in the General Order, we can see quite readily that where it was intended that surrender be to the United States through one of its military commanders in the theatre of war, such stipulation is called out explicitly. To wit:



The General Order appears in full here.
http://www.taiwanadvice.com/gen_order1.htm

The Republic of China is one of the Allied Powers. Japanese commanders on Formosa surrendered to the military commander of the Republic of China. Where surrender to the United States was intended, such is directed by the terms of the General Order.

Even if we assume the General Order no. One remains in force, we are compelled to interpret it on its face, not in accordance with an ex post facto dream version of its intent or effect. Those terms make clear that Formosa came under the control of the Republic of China and its military commander in that region of the theatre of war. If there is recourse under General Order no. One it would be to the courts of that nation, not the courts of the United States.

However, the Treaty of Peace with Japan, the so-called Treaty of San Francisco, clearly terminates the Allied Powers as an operational entity and replaces its collective interests with those of the individual states and the United Nations. There are no residual functions of the Allied Powers. The notion that the Allied Powers and the General Orders of its military commander continue to the present date would appear to suggest that no war is ever over, even after the treaty of peace is signed, ratified, and has gone fully into effect.

Though the Chinese are an extremely nationalistic crowd, the ChiCom party is not stupid enough to commit economic suicide over Taiwan. They will prefer to bide their time and hurt us when then can do so with minimal harm to themselves.

Of course, we should instruct Taiwan, as well as the European and other Asian parasites that prosper under our defensive umbrella that they are henceforth on their own. It would be our first step in returning the our core strength which is a Republic willing to engage in commerce and cultural exchange with the world, but not engaging in foreign entanglements.
Yours,
Issodhos

Sometimes iss, you truly channel my Inner Conservative.

It would appear to suggest to me that some wars are never over. And in fact, I think that is true.

which ones? a treaty either ends a war or it doesn't.