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

Please explain away the financial penalties that are imposed, with successful enforcement provisions, by the World Trade Organization.

Please explain away the various individuals who are now or at some point in their lives have been sitting in jail because of convictions in the World Court. Do you not consider trials and jail terms actually served to be examples of actual enforcement?

I already mentioned courts like the ICJ and the ICC. Those "sitting in jail" are doing so **only** because their own nation (or possibly some nation they were unlucky enough to travel through) agreed to sign the Rome Statute. These courts are simply extensions of treaty agreements between nations. As is the WTO -- it "enforces" its edicts only through the agreement of its own member nations.

Furthermore, none of these bodies are proper venues for the issues broached by TC, nor can an unrecognized, non-member nation bring a suit, and, even if it could, the idea of a sovereign state bringing an action to prove another state has jurisdiction over it (and therefor isn't sovereign to begin with) would be principium contradictionis, and void on its face.

My statement was correct. Assuming TC's (admittedly torturous) thesis is correct, the proper venue is for a resident of Taiwan (Rather than the ROC itself) to bring suit in the US Court System.

Well, this thread has apparently run its course and now is onto new territory. As such, please start a new thread.

Absent a new post on the ORIGINAL topic, this thread is closing today.

Phil Hoskins, moderator.

Eh? The thread began with the post, "A court case now proceeding in Washington DC is claiming that native Taiwanese people..."

Now, a post debating the issue over whether or not the US court system has jurisdiction over that case is off topic? How?

Finish the citation, please. Wait, I'll do it for you:


This claim and the novelty of it are the topic here, not jurisdiction.

As any attorney knows, the first question a judge must evaluate for any novel legal theory, is whether or not their particular court is the proper venue in which to pursue it.

In regard to the court case in Washington D.C., I agree that many of the posters in this thread have gotten way off topic by discussing such topics as "jurisdiction" and "standing."

My original intention was just to discuss the fact that under the San Francisco Peace Treaty of 1952, native Taiwanese persons are entitled to certain "fundamental rights" under US laws and the US Constitution.

However, unfortunately, the legal basis upon which this court case rests has proven too difficult for most of the posters to this thread to understand. I therefore must give my apologies.

I apologize if this is ground already covered, but how do you get from "Japan surrenders Formosa" to "The US gains control of it". In 1952, the US wasn't occupying Taiwan.

Furthermore, by the same treaty, Japan surrendered all claim to Korea also. Does that mean the US now owns South Korea?

No, my friend, we understand it very well. You will from time to time find people who understand yet do not share your assessment.

This is just plain old falsehood, and I wonder how you could not know that, TC, since it is the reason why the appeals court case cited in the opening post of this thread is in the appeals court to begin with.

Our new associate RT is entirely correct.
That is exactly what the lower court's ruling concerned - not the validity of the legal claim, but the appropriateness of the venue. The lower court ruled that they did not have jurisdiction.