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

Voting for what?? What is the subject, or the issue??

Ah! Voting for the outcome you hope to realize through court actions. Simply get the people of the island to agree with you in an election there and then implement that decision of the people.

If you cannot understand the issue you are presenting well enough to put it on the ballot in ROC/Taiwan/Formosa, then please do not be surprised if your issue cannot be resolved by the U.S. Courts.

Actually, it is a "fundamental" right of all men and women, taiwancapsule, just like the "fundamental" right of speech -- it is just that there are many governments that do not trust an armed and/or vocal citizenry. Besides, if you are going to claim the Taiwanese the rights recognized and acknowledged by and under protection of the US Constitution, you do not get to pick and choose which of those rights apply to taiwan and which do not. Or so I would think.:-)
Yours,
Issodhos

I REPEAT MY PREVIOUS COMMENTS: The right of the people to keep and bear arms is not a "fundamental right" which applies to overseas US territories.

PLEASE NOTE: Only "fundamental rights" apply in US overseas territories, and the US Supreme Court has never held that the Second Amendment's right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right. You need to research the Insular Cases of the US Supreme Court!!!

It is not a question of "picking and choosing," it is a question of what rights have been defined as fundamental by the US Supreme Court.

Certainly, our supporters understand the issue(s) we are presenting very well. However, your "understanding" leaves us baffled.

Taiwan is currently under the de-facto jurisdiction of the ROC government in exile, hence our agenda of obtaining "US constitutional rights for native Taiwanese people" in Taiwan cannot be put on the ballot in Taiwan.

Our agenda requires court action in the US federal judiciary, which is exactly the methodology we are pursuing.

Actually, the fundamental rights are those spelled out in the Constitution. You may find it useful to study U.S. political history instead of relying only on U.S. Supreme Court opinions. Else, you might find yourself believing Dred Scott still is considered a valid statement of fundamental rights.

Just a few comments, taiwancapsule. Each Taiwanese, and indeed people worldwide, already have fundamental (dare I say it?:-)) natural "unalienable" rights equal to those of any American. If those rights cannot currently be exercised (such as the right to arm oneself;-)) it is because someone or something is infringing upon, prohibiting, or violating the individual's exercising of her rights.

An interesting thing about the US Constitution is that, for the most part, the main body is a list of things the US government is allowed to do, whereas the Bill of Rights to the Constitution is a list of restrictions and conditions placed upon the US Government relative to those rights. The rights specifically addressed are not Constitutionally granted, but rather Constitutionally recognized and acknowledged as pre-existing rights.

Whereas it may be a function of the US Supreme Court to determine if a person's Constitutionally recognized right or rights have been violated, it is not within its Constitutionally granted authority to pick and choose which rights are "fundamental" or which can be denied.
Yours,
Issodhos

I have spent several years studying the legal arrangements in overseas US territories. Your comments represent a common misconception among persons who are only familiar with the application of US laws and Constitution in the 50 states. You may find it useful to read all the documents which can be referenced from the webpage of http://www.civil-taiwan.org/usca.htmIf you haven't read the Emancipation Proclamation, you can read it here -- http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/emancipa.asp

Although this is the third thread on this topic (Taiwan/U.S. relations), the question on this thread is, I think, different, and deserves separate consideration. Are Taiwan residents entitled to protections under the U.S. Constitution, and if so, to what extent?

I think that Issodhos has stated the basic principles of Constitutional application succinctly: taiwancapsule has indicated an opinion that constitutional application of rights for U.S. territorial subjects is different. I am not sure that I agree, and would like some substantive citations to further that point, so I will likely provide some input on my own as I look into the question. These discussions have challenged me, and I like a good challenge. I just ask that all viewpoints be respected (and respectfully defended).

Analytically, I have disagreed with the premise of the lawsuit, and I think it somewhat unfortunate that the issue is unlikely to be resolved in court (as the District Court has indicated a lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter - which is the issue of the current appeal). So, it will fall to us, as an academic exercise, to flesh out the details. Interestingly, some of the same issues were addressed in the recent Hamdan decision, HAMDAN v. RUMSFELD, which may inform this discussion. When do U.S. Constitutional provisions/protections apply to non-U.S. citizens?

To provide some background for semi-wonky types, here are some Wikipedia and other articles that might be of interest for the discussion: United States Territory; Insular Area (literally, islands, but legally, those portions of U.S. Territory outside of the recognized States); Insular Cases - a list of Supreme Court cases dealing with U.S. Insular Areas; and ISLAND LAW