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

Excellent notion! Rather than an arid exercise in legalistic parsing, there should be a "Pragmatic Sanction" applicable to Taiwan/ROC that recognizes the realities on the ground rather than an appeal to dusty documents long buried in national chancelleries.

Sorry for the intrusion, Ponderer, but it seemed a purely academic exercise to consider Constitutional rights that might or might not accrue in a case that almost certainly fail for lack of standing.

Of course, if that academic exercise is interesting despite the standing problem, I can butt out!

Oh, I don't disagree, Logan. I think that the standing question renders the issue moot, but I was just exploring a little of the constitutional conundrum that the question of the thread raised. Frankly, I can't get there from here either, so it is really mostly a thought exercise.

I "thought" so. Thanks.

Have you read the court documents? Obviously not. I cannot see how you can seriously advance such an argument since you have obviously not read the court documents.Have you read the background links? You really need to do some research. Your analyis is incorrect.

This is a common misconception by civilian researchers.

Exactly. So they can gain no rights under the treaty.
Well, anyone who has read the court documents would understand the basis for the plaintiffs/appellants' standing. Suffice it to say that you have completely misinterpreted the concept of "standing."

Many civilians ASSUME that the acceptance of the surrender gives the accepting party some rights or privileges, however that is not the case. The matter of what party accepts the surrender is not significant . . . . . in other words "surrender ceremonies" can be delegated. Since you have not researched military jurisdiction under the US Constitution, you are confused on this point.
Since you have not read the court documents, you are unqualified to comment on the "standing" issue or any other related issues.
If you want to pursue that option, you are free to do so. As I have explained before, the results of an election by a government-in-exile exercising effective territorial control over an area where it does not exercise sovereignty are NOT VALID under international law. Such is the situation of the ROC in Taiwan.

And then the Katzenjammer Kids . . .

Are you Military tc? What are your qualifications?


Logan, have you researched military jurisdiction under the US Constitution? Do you feel at all confused on this issue?
above bold is mine
Some of the above proclamations seem to be directed at the poster rather than at the post. Comments of this nature can lead to things which violate the guidelines of this board. I would advise caution to all at this point. TC try to address what the poster has said rather than judging and attacking the poster. Perhaps you have not read the guidelines, please do so before continuing in this vein.

Greger,
your question about my research of military jurisdiction in the Constitution reminds me of a scene from one of my favorite movies. The character played by Marisa Tomei has just been asked a question about engine settings that clearly was meant to embarrass her. The scene plays out the string to demonstrate that the question is not based in reality and therefore has no answer.

Similarly, there is no mention of military jurisdiction in the Constitution of the United States. So I am wholly unable to research it.

( Believe it or not, Logan, I use that movie (and that scene) when teaching trial techniques. It also happens to be one of my favorite movies.)

You have previously, correctly, pointed out, Logan, that the initial problem with the suit is standing. Also, there is the issue of the "political question" doctrine.. oh, and the "separation of powers" doctrine, "territorial clause" issues, etc. - any of which is likely to preclude the court from addressing the underlying claims (the merits of which I have addressed in the other thread). (Oh, and I may have mentioned I have some passing familiarity with both Constitutional and Military Law, as well as International Law. Wanna see my Curriculum Vitae?)

All that aside, I have tried in vain to get an analysis of the question presented in this thread that is not merely an iteration of "look at the court documents." I had also tried, to no avail, to keep the focus of this thread on the Constitutional issues raised, rather than regurgitating the substance of the other thread. Here's where I think I am:

1) The court is not going to reach the merits.
2) Congress has not asserted jurisdiction under the Territorial Clause, which means we default to the least application of the Constitution - if at all.
3) Analysis of the applicable treaties does not yield the results the Plaintiffs seek.
4) No "Fundamental Rights" have been abrogated by the current status of the residents of the Island of Taiwan.

Want me to write the decision?

Yes, please. You write that and I'll draft the bill that amends the Federal Judiciary Act to deny the federal courts any jurisdiction over claims involving Formosa/Taiwan/ROC. An old trick I learned from my Republican buddies.

Then we won't have to address the matter any further.