We have, indeed, weaved an incredibly tangled web between the various threads on this topic. Without going back to cite the various arguments that have been flying fast and furious, I would make the following summation:

1) There is a court case in DC asserting that Taiwanese have constitutional rights under the U.S. Constitution;
2) The suit was dismissed at the trial level for lack of jurisdiction (political question);
3) The issue now on appeal is whether that dismissal was proper.

The standard practice in appellate courts is to look at issues of law de novo, which means as if they are being argued fresh. Further, appellate courts can affirm the District Court dismissal on any legal basis it finds appropriate - so other issues of jurisdiction will be considered there (as they have been here). Issues of fact are taken as presented in the trial court (although they may be given different interpretation by the appellate court).

Although probably not intentionally, taiwancapsule has acknowledged that the court will probably not grant the appeal based upon the "political question" doctrine, but would still like to debate whether the U.S. Constitution might apply to Taiwan and its residents by virtue of U.S. "occupation by proxy." Personally, I find the theory far-fetched for a number of reasons, most of which I have raised elsewhere in the thread. There has been a lack of civility in the thread, probably as a result of significant disagreement, and a rather wide-ranging discussion of tangential - although relevant - issues. That tone is likely to result in the closing of the thread.

A number of the posters here are lawyers, and at least some of us have experience in court dealing with issues of international law and interpretation. We know how the court processes such cases, and have tried to address those "preliminary issues" as they come up. There is considerable frustration - some of it expressed by me - regarding how international treaties are interpreted under international law. It has been correctly pointed out that "international law" is a somewhat haphazard affair, and like the Bible, can result in diametrically opposed interpretations on various subjects. Two bodies of law are relevant, as has been pointed out: treaties, and custom. Both require interpretation.

I think part of the difficulty here has been that this is new ground - the theory of the case before the court is unique, as far as I can tell. There are no precedents. Its adherents, however, are fully invested in supporting it, and as a result, competing interpretations are rejected. That does not engender much discussion, but certainly has generated a lot of disagreement! At this juncture, I wonder if anything more can be accomplished, as far as this forum is concerned. It appears, to me, that we have come to an impasse and that no one is likely to be persuaded either way. Does anyone think otherwise?

A well reasoned argument is like a diamond: impervious to corruption and crystal clear - and infinitely rarer.

Here, as elsewhere, people are outraged at what feels like a rigged game -- an economy that won't respond, a democracy that won't listen, and a financial sector that holds all the cards. - Robert Reich