Monday, December 16, 2013

From the Desk of:

Mario E. Porrata,

Gurabo, Puerto Rico 00778

United States of America

porratamario@aol.com

787-637-9452

 

 

December 10, 2013

 

 

 

Honorable Members of The Congress of the

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

 

            The link bellow will take you to a bill that has the goal to admit Puerto Rico as the next State of the United States of America.  There are three important reasons why you should help me file this PRO SE bill.

            First, Congress cannot ignore the results of the two plebiscites held in Puerto Rico on November 6 of 2012.  In the first plebiscite, a majority of the U.S. Citizens in Puerto Rico that voted, rejected the continuation of the present territorial status, thus recalling the principle of the "consent of the governed" that was called for and given in U.S.P.L. 600 of 1950-52.  And in the second plebiscite, the majority of the U.S. Citizens in Puerto Rico that voted expressed their desire for full statehood, i.e., the full application of the Constitution of the United States in Puerto Rico. 

            Second, those Members of Congress that help in this endeavor will surely be seen in good favor by the Hispanic Community in the several States.  Further, it will also impact those U. S. Citizens that have become friends to all those U. S. Citizens from Puerto Rico that have moved to the several States.  Still further, it will have an impact on those U. S. citizens that have come to Puerto Rico as tourists and have fell in love with the Island and its People.  Many have moved in.  Thus....

            Members of Congress should also be aware that there is a community of State-born U.S. Citizens that live in Puerto Rico and are being deprived of their right to vote for the President and Vice-President and also deprived of a full democratic representation in Congress.  In other words, the political status of Puerto Rico as an Incorporated Territory of the United States, violates fundamental political and democratic rights of ALL citizens of the United States that wish to live in the Island.  There is absolutely no excuse to let this situation to continue to happen!

            Last, but not least, the ignorance of the U.S. Citizens in Puerto Rico regarding their real political status as an Incorporated Territory of the United States, coupled with the same ignorance at the Federal Government, has created a political climate that disallows social and economic stability and growth.  It has created a constant and unnecessary quarrel between the two principal political parties that imperils any kind of common effort to move Puerto Rico forward in all fronts. 

            The constant increase in social, economic and political instability in Puerto Rico puts additional burdens in the Federal Government because Puerto Rico is inhabited by Natural Born U.S. Citizens that cannot be let down. The only solution to the problem is admitting PR as a State in order to bring political and economic equality, stability and development to our community.

           

 

End of Page 1 of 2

Page 2 of 2

Honorable Members of The Congress of the

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

 

            Congress has seen and felt such level of ignorance in all the hearings held throughout the years, both here and in Washington D.C.,  which is why Congress was always looking for a "consensus" that did not exist.  But now the people have clearly spoken.  And the position of the U. S. Citizens in Puerto Rico in favor of Full Statehood will be clearly confirmed in a Congressional Process to Admit Puerto Rico as the next State of the United States of America.  This is the only process that will produce a profound educational environment respecting the real political status of Puerto Rico.  And we can definitely ascertain that a rejection of an admission to statehood can only be interpreted as a desire for independence.

            I honestly hope that many of you, Members of Congress, will allow me to present this Admission Act to both Chambers of Congress and as soon as possible.  And if any of you wish to co-sponsor the bill, the People of Puerto Rico, natural born U. S. Citizens, will be greatly pleased and thankful.

            After you read the bill, please let me know if you can help me file it by writing to me at my e-mail address porratamario@aol.com or my home address at the head of this letter.  Here is the link to access the bill:  estadidadpr.com.

 

Sincerely yours,

 

Mario E. Porrata

 

            


--
Mario

Saturday, December 14, 2013

THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
JOINT RESOLUTION
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
THE ENERGY AND RESOURCES COMMITTEE
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES:
THE RESOURCES COMMITTEE
AN ACT
TO ADMIT PUERTO RICO AND ITS UNITED STATES CITIZENS
AS A FULL STATE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Tuesday, August ____, of the Year 2013
PRO SE
By Mario E. Porrata Colón
Gurabo, Puerto Rico 00778   
INTRODUCTION
            In December of 2012, the Legislature of Puerto Rico submitted a Concurrent Resolution to the Congress of the United States of America requesting the initiation of a process to admit Puerto Rico as the next State of the United States of America.  (See Appendix I for a copy of that resolution).  Also, Resident Commissioner Pedro Pierluisi has submitted HR2000 in the House of Representatives in an effort to resolve the status issue of Puerto Rico. (See Appendix J for a copy of that bill).
            Both of these actions are a result of a plebiscite held in November 6, 2012, in which the People of Puerto Rico voted to end the Territorial Status and by majority vote expressed their desire for Puerto Rico to become the next State of the United States of America.
             As neither of these efforts was in effect an Act of Admission, Congress has not felt compelled to act upon them.  Therefore, this ACT portends to replace those efforts with a true ACT OF ADMISSION that should compel the Congress to officially act on such an important issue as the request of Natural Born U.S. Citizens for admission of an Incorporated Territory as the next State of the United States of America.
            THIS ACT IS NOT A REQUEST TO THE CONGRESS TO OFFER STATEHOOD TO THE U.S. CITIZENS OF PUERTO RICO.  THIS ACT IS A LEGITIMATE REQUEST, FOLLOWING THE RESULTS OF A RECENTLY HELD PLEBISCITE BY THE U.S. CITIZENS OF THE INCORPORATED TERRITORY OF PUERTO RICO,  TO ADMIT PUERTO RICO AS THE NEXT STATE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
            The fundamental steps to admit Puerto Rico as a State have already been set in motion and Congress cannot elude its responsibility to act upon it:
             “Historically, Congress has applied the following general procedure when granting territories statehood:
*  The territory holds a referendum vote to determine the people's desire for or against statehood.
*  Should a majority vote to seek statehood, the territory petitions the U.S. Congress for statehood.
*  The territory, if it has not already done so, is required to adopt a form of government and constitution that are in compliance with the U.S. Constitution.
*  The U.S. Congress - both House and Senate - pass, by a simple majority vote, a joint resolution accepting the territory as a state.
*  The President of the United States signs the joint resolution and the territory is acknowledged as a U.S. State.” Quote from the Internet.

            We have already implemented the initial steps:
            *  The territory held a referendum in which 61% of the voters expressed their desire for full statehood.
            *  The Legislature of Puerto Rico has submitted a Concurrent Resolution to Congress requesting a process of admission of Puerto Rico as the next State of the Union.
            *  Both our form of government and constitution are in full compliance with the US Constitution.  After all, our actual Constitution is a Law of Congress.
           
            However, we respectfully ask Congress to examine our present Constitution to determine if any cosmetic changes are required to be made in recognition of the sovereignty of the State and the full integration of Puerto Rico into the constitutional system;  also, Congress should make the necessary amendments for that purpose, produce the necessary Enabling Act and submit both documents for final approval by the US Citizens of Puerto Rico.
            Should there be a need to negotiate with the People of Puerto Rico anything related to its final admission as the next State of the Union, a Special Status Commission should be created for that purpose and elected by the direct vote of the People.  Our actual elected officials do not have such authorization from the People; neither were they elected for that purpose. 

HISTORICAL EVENTS THAT JUSTIFY THIS PETITION
            Puerto Rico officially became a territory of the United States upon the signature of the Treaty of Peace with Spain in the date of 14 of March, in the year 1899.  (See Appendix A for the full text of the Treaty of Peace).
            The Citizens of Puerto Rico were extended the Citizenship of the United States of America after it was offered to them through the Jones Act of 1917 and only approximately 288 expressed their disapproval after six months of deliberations.  (See Appendix B for the specific section of the Jones Act of 1917 in which US Citizenship was offered to the People of Puerto Rico).
            In 1935 President Franklin D. Roosevelt removed Puerto Rico from the dominion of the Secretary of War and inserted it under the dominion of the Department of Interior, making Puerto Rico an integral part of the Government of the United States.  This action allowed the People of Puerto Rico to participate in the benefits of the New Deal under President Roosevelt.  (See Appendix C for the full text of the presidential statement).
            In 1947 the Congress of the United States, by means of Public Law 362,  extended the Constitution of the United States to the US Citizens in Puerto Rico thus producing its incorporation.  In fact, 22 years before, Chief Justice Taft (former US President) made two remarks that would confirm Puerto Rico's incorporation in the near future.  First, that Article III courts did not exist at the moment in the Island; second, that the wording to incorporate Alaska was absent in the wording to grant US Citizenship to Puerto Rico in the Jones Act of 1917.  These criteria have already been met in Puerto Rico since a long time ago. (See Appendix D for a full report on the Incorporation of Puerto Rico by an express Act of Congress)
            By means of Public Law 600 of 1950-52, the Congress allowed the People of Puerto Rico, natural born U.S. Citizens, to govern themselves in local matters through a federal law that created a local Constitution.  (See Appendix E for details).
            Both P.L. 362 of 1947 and P.L. 600 of 1950-52 created a unique situation in the history of the United States in which, while the Archipelago of Puerto Rico remained a territory of the United States, the body politic of the U.S. Citizens  in the Island (the Commonwealth) did become a State of the United States of America in the natural meaning of the word “State.”  Such a condition has been amply recognized by the Supreme Court of the United States in several occasions.

            Ever since Puerto Rico became a territory of the United States, its citizens have been an integral part of our armed forces in defense of our principles of liberty and freedom; in defense of our Constitution.  (See Appendix F for details on the participation of Puerto Ricans in the Armed Forces of the United States).
           Throughout the years the natural born U. S. Citizens of Puerto Rico have used the Comity Clause of the U. S. Constitution to settle at the several States, while many natural born U. S. Citizens from the States have moved to Puerto Rico to settle locally.  Such mobility is typical of the Citizens of the several States and among themselves, according to the Bureau of the Census.
            Today, after having to deal with voluminous misinformation regarding their real standing as natural born citizens of the United States (See Appendix G for a full explanation about this important issue that has delayed the solution of the status problem of Puerto Rico and a discussion of previous plebiscites), the US Citizens of Puerto Rico have clearly expressed by majority vote in two separate plebiscites held on the same day, November 6, 2012, that they 1) do not wish to continue to live in the territorial status that allows discrimination against them by the Congress of the United States, and 2) that they wish Puerto Rico becomes a full State of the United States of America under the full application of the U.S. Constitution.  (See Appendix H for a detailed discussion on the results of the plebiscite held on November 6, 2012).


            It has been argued that some voters that participated in the first phase of the plebiscite held in November 6 of 2012 did not participate in the second phase.  They submitted their ballots blank and the enemies of statehood want to assign those blank ballots against statehood (why not against independence?).
            A more logical approach to these blank ballots is that those voters that refrained from voting in the second phase had voted for the territorial condition in the first phase and were not interested in neither independence or statehood.  As always, a historical smaller and smaller segment of the population declines to participate in a process that could produce a final solution to our recurrent political status issue.  However, it is well known in our democratic system that those that vote are the only ones with the power to do something about a political issue.
            But here is the important thing to consider.  Puerto Rican voters have always been lied to respecting the effects of statehood or independence.  In the case of statehood, which is our concern here, an admission act, coupled with an Statehood Enabling Act, would clearly spell out the conditions for full statehood, dispelling all lies on which voters would vote with a mere “statehood yes or no” question.  This is the right thing to do in order to have a definite vote from the US Citizens in Puerto Rico on Puerto Rico opting for statehood.  Nothing else will do.
           
            In Puerto Rico, the leaders of the Popular Democratic Party are proposing to ignore the results of the November plebiscite and have proposed a “Constitutional Convention” to deal with the status issue.  As the details of the proposal have emerged, the text of the actual Constitution will not be an issue!  Therefore the name of the convention has been changed to that of a “Status Convention.” So, it is evident that we would move back to square one:  They will legislate a convention to offer to the people a territory with a special form of Statehood, with constitutional conditions that cannot be under the US Constitution.  This game cannot continue while the political, social and economic conditions of the U. S. Citizens in Puerto Rico continue to deteriorate.  The hoax of an “enhanced commonwealth” must be put to rest, forever.  This ADMISSION ACT will hopefully achieve such an important goal.
            For these and other more detailed reasons, which we expound in the accompanying analyses, the Congress of the United States of America is presented with this JOINT RESOLUTION, by the Senate and House Committees in charge of the Territory of Puerto Rico, to admit Puerto Rico as the next State of the United States of America:   

Whereas,
            The Congress of the United States of America  incorporated the territory of Puerto Rico by means of the US Public Law 362 in 1947, in which the Congress extended the US Constitution to the inhabitants of its territory, Puerto Rico, in Section 7 of said law :
           
"Sec. 7. Section 2 of said Organic Act (48 U. S. C., sec. 737) is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new paragraph:
            The rights, privileges, and immunities of citizens of the United States shall be respected in Puerto Rico to the same extent as though Puerto Rico were a State of the Union and subject to the provisions of paragraph 1 of section 2 of article IV of the Constitution of the United States."

Whereas,
            The Congress of the United States of America, in a historic move, approved Public Law 600 in 1950-52, which granted Puerto Rico an extensive autonomic government, unlike anything done with any other territory, which resembled an action proper to a State, but without sovereignty.
            This action by Congress, which was made in good faith, was wrongly interpreted in Puerto Rico and has since created lots of confusion regarding the true political status of the US Citizens in Puerto Rico. 

Whereas,
            Some political leaders in Puerto Rico, taking advantage of the confusion generated by Public Law 600, have attempted to move the citizenry away from the United States with an anti-American, anti-Statehood attitude and have failed in this attempt.  The US Citizens of Puerto Rico cherish their US Citizenship and their ties to the United States of America; they are loyal US Citizens like any of the several States and are not willing to lose their US Citizenship and their US Constitutional protections under any circumstance. 
            Aware of this, the enemies of statehood promise unconstitutional political status options which cannot be under the Constitution of the United States of America.  The US Citizens of Puerto Rico have been misled to believe, in all plebiscites held since the adoption of the Commonwealth in 1952,  that there could be an “Enhanced Commonwealth,” i.e., a special form of statehood, with sovereign powers outside the Constitution of the United States, yet within the jurisdiction of the Constitution of the United States with the “indissoluble link”of US Citizenship;

Whereas,
            The US Citizens of Puerto Rico have opted to vote in favor of such “Enhanced Commonwealth” formula in the plebiscites of 1967 and 1993, only to find that their wish could not be implemented for being unconstitutional under the US Flag ;

Whereas,
            The US Citizens of Puerto Rico have always expressed their desire, in every plebiscite held since the establishment of Commonwealth in 1952, to remain Citizens of the United States of America under the Constitution of the United States of America; (See Appendix F for the results of two recent surveys);

Whereas,
            The US Citizens of Puerto Rico have now held a two phase plebiscite in which, first, they rejected the continuation of their actual territorial status refusing to believe in a fantasy called “Enhanced Commonwealth,” and, second, they opted for shared sovereignty in statehood against separate sovereignty in independence.  This two stage plebiscite was suggested in the report of the President's Task Force on the Political Status of Puerto Rico in 2005. (See Appendix H);

THEREFORE
            The People of Puerto Rico, natural born United States citizens, request from the Congress of the United States of America:  That the Incorporated Territory of Puerto Rico be admitted as a State of the United States of America, on equal footing with the rest of the States, after the following actions by the Congress of the United States are approved:
            Section 1.  By this ACT Congress approves:  That Puerto Rico is an incorporated territory of the United States of America and is destined to become a State of the Union; That the Title “Puerto Rican Federal Relations Act” created by Public Law 600 of 1952, and Chapter 4 of Title 48 of the United States Code of Laws, are by this ACT of Congress repealed;
            Section 2.  By this ACT Congress approves: That the Territory of Puerto Rico is now in possession of the People of Puerto Rico as a Sovereign State of the United States of America;  that the lands presently held by the government of the United States in Puerto Rico remain as such and as patrimony of the People of the United States including the United States Citizens of Puerto Rico;
            Section 3.  By this ACT Congress approves: That the Constitution of the United States of America now fully applies to the People of Puerto Rico at the same level  as it applies to the Peoples of the several States, with all the corresponding privileges and immunities of Citizens of the United States of America;
            Section 4.  By this ACT Congress approves:  That the present Constitution of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico is compatible with the new status of Puerto Rico as a State and will continue in force.  That the People of Puerto Rico, after Puerto Rico is admitted as a State, may amend their local Constitution only to reflect one as belonging to a State of the United States;
            Section 4.  By this ACT Congress approves:  That all references to Puerto Rico as a territory, possession or any similar term in the U.S. Code of Laws and in the several laws of the United States, including State laws,  shall be repealed, transferred or modified to reflect the new condition of Puerto Rico as a State of the United States;
            Section 5.  By this ACT Congress approves:  That every law in the U.S. Code of Laws  and in the several laws of the United States, including State laws, which reflects a different treatment of Puerto Rico as that accorded to the States shall be repealed, transferred or modified to reflect the new condition of Puerto Rico as a State of the United States;
            Section 6.  By this ACT Congress approves:  That Congress shall legislate an “Puerto Rico Statehood Enabling Act” within three months after approval of the Admission Act, with specific conditions for the admission of the territory as a State, and submit it to the US Citizens in Puerto Rico through a referendum for approval and ratification within three months after .  Provided that a Status Commission of local US Citizens in Puerto Rico, elected by the People through a referendum, will be authorized to evaluate, and make recommendations, on the contents of the Enabling Act and allowed to negotiate its terms with Congress, until full statehood is achieved.

APPROVED BY THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
           
 __________________.
           

           
           

appendix a
Treaty of Peace Between the United States and Spain
December 10, 1898

            The United States of America and Her Majesty the Queen Regent of Spain, in the name of her august son Don Alfonso XIII, desiring to end the state of war now existing between the two countries, have for that purpose  appointed as plenipotentiaries:
            The President of the United States,
            William R. Day, Cushman K. Davis, William P. Frye, George Gray, and Whitelaw Reid, citizens of the United States;
             And Her Majesty the Queen Regent of Spain,
            Don Eugenio Montero Rios, president of the senate,
            Don Buenaventura de Abarzuza, senator of the Kingdom and          ex_minister of the Crown;
            Don Jose de Garnica, deputy of the Cortes and associate justice of the supreme court;
            Don Wenceslao Ramirez de Villa_Urrutia, envoy extraordinary and             minister plenipotentiary at Brussels, and Don Rafael Cerero, general of division;
            Who, having assembled in Paris, and having exchanged their full powers, which were found to be in due and proper form, have, after discussion of the matters before them, agreed upon the following articles:

Article I.
             Spain relinquishes all claim of sovereignty over and  title to Cuba.   And as the island is, upon its evacuation by Spain, to be occupied by the  United States, the United States will, so long as such occupation shall last, assume and discharge the obligations that may under international law result from the fact of its occupation, for the protection of life and property.

Article II.
            Spain cedes to the United States the island of Porto Rico and other islands now under Spanish sovereignty in the West Indies, and the island of Guam in the Marianas or Ladrones.

Article III.
            Spain cedes to the United States the archipelago known as the Philippine Islands, and comprehending the islands lying within the following line:  A line running from west to east along or near the twentieth parallel of north latitude, and through the middle of the navigable channel of Bachi, from the one hundred and eighteenth (118th) to the one hundred and twenty_seventh (127th) degree meridian of longitude east of Greenwich,  thence along the one hundred and twenty seventh (127th) degree meridian of longitude east of Greenwich to the parallel of four degrees and forty five minutes (4! 45') north latitude, thence along the parallel of four degrees  and forty five minutes (4! 45') north latitude to its intersection with the meridian of longitude one hundred and nineteen degrees and thirty five minutes (119! 35') east of Greenwich, thence along the meridian of longitude one hundred and nineteen degrees and thirty five minutes (119! 35') east of Greenwich to the parallel of latitude seven degrees and forty  minutes (7! 40') north, thence along the parallel of latitude of seven  degrees and forty minutes (7! 40') north to its intersection with the one hundred and sixteenth (116th) degree meridian of longitude east of Greenwich, thence by a direct line to the intersection of the tenth (10th) degree parallel of north latitude with the one hundred and eighteenth (118th) degree meridian of longitude east of Greenwich, and thence along  the one hundred and eighteenth (118th) degree meridian of longitude east of Greenwich to the point of beginning.
            The United States will pay to Spain the sum of twenty million dollars ($20,000,000) within three months after the exchange of the ratifications of the present treaty.

Article IV.
            The United States will, for the term of ten years from the date of the exchange of the ratifications of the present treaty, admit Spanish ships and merchandise to the ports of the Philippine Islands on the same terms as ships and merchandise of the United States.

Article V.
            The United States will, upon the signature of the present treaty, send back to Spain, at its own cost, the Spanish soldiers taken as prisoners of  war on the capture of Manila by the American forces. The arms of the  soldiers in question shall be restored to them.
            Spain will, upon the exchange of the ratifications of the present treaty, proceed to evacuate the Philippines, as well as the island of Guam, on terms similar to those agreed upon by the Commissioners appointed to arrange for the evacuation of Porto Rico and other islands in the West Indies, under the Protocol of August 12, 1898, which is to continue in force till its provisions are completely executed.
            The time within which the evacuation of the Philippine Islands and Guam shall be completed shall be fixed by the two Governments. Stands of colors, uncaptured war vessels, small arms, guns of all calibres, with their carriages and accessories, powder, ammunition, livestock, and materials and supplies of all kinds, belonging to the land and naval forces of Spain in the Philippines and Guam, remain the property of Spain.
            Pieces of heavy ordnance, exclusive of field artillery, in the fortifications and coast defences, shall remain in their emplacements for the term of six months, to be reckoned from the exchange of ratifications of the treaty; and the United States may, in the meantime, purchase such material from Spain, if a satisfactory agreement between the two Governments on the subject shall be reached.

Article VI.
            Spain will, upon the signature of the present treaty, release all prisoners of war, and all persons detained or imprisoned for political offences, in connection with the insurrections in Cuba and the Philippines and the war with the United States.
            Reciprocally, the United States will release all persons made prisoners of war by the American forces, and will undertake to obtain the release of all Spanish prisoners in the hands of the insurgents in Cuba and the Philippines.
            The Government of the United States will at its own cost return to Spain and the Government of Spain will at its own cost return to the United States, Cuba, Porto Rico, and the Philippines, according to the situation of their respective homes, prisoners released or caused to be released by them, respectively, under this article.

Article VII.
            The United States and Spain mutually relinquish all claims for indemnity, national and individual, of every kind, of either Government, or of its citizens or subjects, against the other Government, that may have arisen since the beginning of the late insurrection in Cuba and prior to the exchange of ratifications of the present treaty, including all claims for  indemnity for the cost of the war.
            The United States will adjudicate and settle the claims of its citizens against Spain relinquished in this article.

Article VIII.
            In conformity with the provisions of Articles I, II, and III of this treaty, Spain relinquishes in Cuba, and cedes in Porto Rico and other islands in the West Indies, in the island of Guam, and in the Philippine Archipelago, all the buildings, wharves, barracks, forts, structures,  public highways and other immovable property which, in conformity with  law, belong to the public domain, and as such belong to the Crown of Spain.
             And it is hereby declared that the relinquishment or cession, as the case  may be, to which the preceding paragraph refers, can not in any respect air the property or rights which by law belong to the peaceful  possession of property of all kinds, of provinces, municipalities, public or private establishments, ecclesiastical or civic bodies, or any other  associations having legal capacity to acquire and possess property in the aforesaid territories renounced or ceded, or of private individuals, of whatsoever nationality such individuals may be.
            The aforesaid relinquishment or cession, as the case may be, includes all documents exclusively referring to the sovereignty relinquished or ceded that may exist in the archives of the Peninsula. Where any document in such archives only in part relates to said sovereignty, a copy of such part will be furnished whenever it shall be requested. Like rules shall be reciprocally observed in favor of Spain in respect of documents in the archives of the islands above referred to.
            In the aforesaid relinquishment or cession, as the case may be, are also included such rights as the Crown of Spain and its authorities possess in respect of the official archives and records, executive as well as  judicial, in the islands above referred to, which relate to said islands or the rights and property of their inhabitants. Such archives and records  shall be carefully preserved, and private persons shall without distinction have the right to require, in accordance with law, authenticated copies of the contracts, wills and other instruments forming part of notorial protocols or files, or which may be contained in the executive or judicial archives, be the latter in Spain or in the islands aforesaid.

Article IX.
            Spanish subjects, natives of the Peninsula, residing in the territory over  which Spain by the present treaty relinquishes or cedes her sovereignty,  may remain in such territory or may remove therefrom, retaining in either  event all their rights of property, including the right to sell or dispose of such property or of its proceeds; and they shall also have the right to carry on their industry, commerce and professions, being subject in respect thereof to such laws as are applicable to other foreigners.
            In case they remain in the territory they may preserve their allegiance to the Crown of Spain by making, before a court of record, within a year from the date of the exchange of ratifications of this treaty, a declaration of their decision to preserve such allegiance; in default of which declaration they shall be held to have renounced it and to have adopted The nationality of the territory in which they may reside.
            The civil rights and political status of the native inhabitants of the territories hereby ceded to the United States shall be determined by the Congress.

Article X.
            The inhabitants of the territories over which Spain relinquishes or cedes her sovereignty shall be secured in the free exercise of their religion.

Article XI.
            The Spaniards residing in the territories over which Spain by this treaty cedes or relinquishes her sovereignty shall be subject in matters civil as well as criminal to the jurisdiction of the courts of the country wherein they reside, pursuant to the ordinary laws governing the same; and they shall have the right to appear before such courts, and to pursue the same  course as citizens of the country to which the courts belong.

 Article XII.
            Judicial proceedings pending at the time of the exchange of ratifications of this treaty in the territories over which Spain relinquishes or cedes her sovereignty shall be determined according to the following rules:
            1. Judgments rendered either in civil suits between private individuals, or in criminal matters, before the date mentioned, and with respect to which there is no recourse or right of review under the Spanish law, shall be deemed to be final, and shall be executed in due form by competent authority in the territory within which such judgments should be carried out.
            2. Civil suits between private individuals which may on the date mentioned be undetermined shall be prosecuted to judgment before the court in which they may then be pending or in the court that may be substituted therefor.
            3. Criminal actions pending on the date mentioned before the Supreme Court of Spain against citizens of the territory which by this treaty ceases to be Spanish shall continue under its jurisdiction until final judgment; but, such judgment having been rendered, the execution thereof shall be committed to the competent authority of the place in which the case arose.
Article XIII.
            The rights of property secured by copyrights and patents acquired by Spaniards in the Island of Cuba and in Porto Rico, the Philippines and other ceded territories, at the time of the exchange of the ratifications of this treaty, shall continue to be respected. Spanish scientific, literary and artistic works, not subversive of public order in the territories in question, shall continue to be admitted free of duty into such territories, for the period of ten years, to be reckoned from the date of the exchange of the ratifications of this treaty.

Article XIV.
            Spain will have the power to establish consular officers in the ports and places of the territories, the sovereignty over which has been either relinquished or ceded by the present treaty.

Article XV.
            The Government of each country will, for the term of ten years, accord to the merchant vessels of the other country the same treatment in respect of all port charges, including entrance and clearance dues, light dues, and tonnage duties, as it accords to its own merchant vessels, not engaged  in the coastwise trade.

Article XVI.
            It is understood that any obligations assumed in this treaty by the United States with respect to Cuba are limited to the time of its occupancy thereof; but it will upon termination of such occupancy, advise any Government established in the island to assume the same obligations.

Article XVII.
            The present treaty shall be ratified by the President of the United  States, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate thereof, and by Her Majesty the Queen Regent of Spain; and the ratifications shall be exchanged at Washington within six months from the date hereof, or earlier if possible.
            In faith whereof, we, the respective Plenipotentiaries, have signed this treaty and have hereunto affixed our seals.  Done in duplicate at Paris, the tenth day of December, in the year of Our  Lord one thousand eight hundred and ninety_eight.

            [Seal] William R. Day
            [Seal] Cushman K. Davis
            [Seal] William P. Frye
            [Seal] Geo. Gray
            [Seal] Whitelaw Reid
            [Seal] Eugenio Montero Rios
            [Seal] B. de Abarzuza
            [Seal] J. de Garnica
            [Seal] W. R. de Villa Urrutia
            [Seal] Rafael Cerero
      Source: A Treaty of Peace Between the United States and Spain, U.S.
Congress, 55th Cong., 3d sess., Senate Doc. No. 62, Part 1 (Washington:
      Government Printing Office, 1899).


APPENDIX B
Organic Act of Porto Rico of March 2, 1917
(38 Stat. 951 [Comp. St. 3803a-3803z]), known as the Jones Act. [258 U.S. 298, 306] 

Sec. 5. That all citizens of Porto Rico as defined by section seven of the act of April twelfth, nineteen hundred, 'temporarily to provide revenues and a civil government for Porto Rico, and for other purposes,' and all natives of Porto Rico who were temporarily absent from that island on April eleventh, eighteen hundred and ninety-nine, and have since returned and are permanently residing in that island, and are not citizens of any foreign country, are hereby declared, and shall be deemed and held to be, citizens of the United States: Provided, that any person hereinbefore described may retain his present political status by making a declaration, under oath, of his decision to do so within six months of the taking effect of this act before the district court in the district in which he resides, the declaration to be in form as follows:
'_____, _____, being duly sworn, hereby declare my intention not to become a citizen of the United States as provided in the act of Congress conferring United States citizenship upon citizens of Porto Rico and certain natives permanently residing in said island.'
In the case of any such person who may be absent from the island during said six months the term of this proviso may be availed of by transmitting a declaration, under oath, in the form herein in provided within six months of the taking effect of the act to the executive secretary of Porto Rico: And provided further, that any person who is born in Porto Rico of an alien parent and is permanently residing in that island may, if of full age, within six months of the taking his majority or within or if a minor, upon reaching his majority or within one year thereafter, make a sworn declaration of allegiance to the United States before the United States District Court for Porto Rico, setting forth therein all the facts connected with his or her birth and residence in Porto Rico and accompanying due proof thereof, and from and after the making of such declaration shall be considered to be a citizen of the United States.

APPENDIX C

DECLARATION BY PRESIDENT FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT

70 - Executive Order 7057 Establishing the Puerto Rico Reconstruction Administration.
May 28, 1935



By virtue of and pursuant to the authority vested in me under the Emergency Relief Appropriation Act of 1935, approved April 8, 1935 (Public Resolution No. 11, 74th Congress), I hereby establish an agency within the Department of the Interior to be known as the "Puerto Rico Reconstruction Administration," and appoint Ernest H. Gruening as Administrator thereof, to serve without additional compensation.
I hereby prescribe the following functions and duties of the said Puerto Rico Reconstruction Administration to be exercised and performed by the Administrator thereof:
To initiate, formulate, administer and supervise a program of approved projects for providing relief and work relief and for increasing employment within Puerto Rico.
In the performance of such duties and functions, expenditures are hereby authorized for necessary supplies and equipment; law books and books of reference, directories, periodicals, newspapers and press clippings; travel expenses, including the expense of attendance at meetings when specifically authorized by the Administrator; rental at the seat of Government and elsewhere; purchase, operation and maintenance of passenger-carrying vehicles; printing and binding; and incidental expenses; and I hereby authorize the Administrator to accept and utilize such voluntary and uncompensated services and, with the consent of the local government of Puerto Rico, such local officers and employees, and appoint, without regard to the provisions of the civil service laws, such officers and employees, as may be necessary, prescribe their duties and responsibilities and, without regard to the Classification Act of 1923, as amended, fix their compensation: Provided, That in so far as practicable, the persons employed under the authority of this Executive Order shall be selected from those receiving relief.
To the extent necessary to carry out the provisions of this Executive Order the Administrator is authorized to acquire, by purchase or by the power of eminent domain, any real property or any interest therein and improve, develop, grant, sell, lease (with or without the privilege of purchasing), or otherwise dispose of any such property or interest therein.
Allocations will be made hereafter for the administrative expenses of the Puerto Rico Reconstruction Administration and for authorized projects.


APPENDIX D

PUERTO RICO IS AN INCORPORATED TERRITORY OF
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
MARIO E. PORRATA


TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION

I.                   Importance and Need of the Determination to Recognize That Puerto Rico      Has Already   Been Incorporated Into the United States of America.

                                    II.        How Incorporation Is Achieved:  The Supreme Court Has Defined and  Recognized The                                                       Existence of a Process That Leads To  Incorporation.

III.      How The People Of Puerto Rico, and the Territory, Have Been Incorporated By The             Congress With an Express Declaration.

IV.       The Congress Has Made Other Incorporation Decisions on Puerto Rico Without a     Formal Declaration.

V.        An Analogy Between Alaska in Rassmussen Vs The United States (197 U.S.     516 (1905))     and the U.S. Code Regarding Puerto Rico

VI.      Once The Provisions Of The Constitution of the United States are Extended, They     Cannot be Withdrawn by the Congress.

VII.     A Sentence in the Task Force Report That Must be Deleted

CONCLUSION

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

CASES CITED DIRECTLY:

         Balzac v. People Of Porto Rico, 258 U.S. 298 (1922)
         Binns v. U S, 194 U.S. 486 (1904)
         Dorr v. USA (195 U.S. 138 - 1904)
         Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901)
         Emma Rodriguez, v. Puerto Rico Federal Affairs Administration, et al., United States of                                       America, Intervenor, No. 05-  1410,
         Harris Vs Rosario (446 U.S. 651 (1980)
         Martin v. Hunter, 4l. Ed. 103
         Rassmussen Vs The United States (197 U.S. 516 (1905))
         Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957)

                     Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1856)

         Tomes v. Witless, 334 U.S. 385, 395 (1948)
         Torres v. Puerto Rico 442 U.S. 465 (1979)
         United States of America v. Marco Laboy Torres, United States Court of Appeals For The Third   District,No. 08-1220,
          
CASES CITED WITHIN QUOTES:

         Americana of Puerto Rico, Inc. v. Kaplus, 368 F. 2d 431, 435 (3d Cir. 1966)
         Cf. State of Texas v. White, 1868, 7 Wall. 700, 721
         Cordova & Simonpietri Insurance Agency Inc. v. Chase Manhattan Bank N. A., 649 F. 2d 36, 38 (1st Cir. 1981)
         Cross v. Harrison, 16 How. 197
         Examining Board v. Flores de Otero, 426 U.S. 572, 599
          Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 U.S. 698 , 37 L. ed. 905, 13 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1016;
         Hawaii v. Mankichi, 190 U.S. 197
         Johnson v. M'Intosh, 8 Wheat. 543, 583, 5 L. ed. 681, 691
          Lem Moon Sing, 158 U.S. 538, 547 , 39 S. L. ed. 1082, 1085, 15 Sup. Ct. Rep. 962;
         Loughborough v. Blake, 5 Wheat. 317, 5 L. ed. 98
          Gibbons v. District of Columbia, 116 U.S. 404 ,
         Marin v. University of Puerto Rico, 346 F. [416 U.S. 663, 674] Supp. 470, 481 (PR 1972);
          Mattingly v. District of Columbia, 97 U.S. 687 , 24 L. ed. 1098.
         Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, 22 L. ed. 627
         Mora v. Mejias, 206 F.2d 377 (CA1 1953)
         Puerto Rico v. Shell Co. (P. R.), Ltd., 302 U.S. 253 (1937)
         Ramirez v. Puerto Rico Fire Service, 715 F. 2d 694, 697 (1st Cir. 1983).
         Springville v. Thomas, 166 U.S. 707
         Stainback v. Mo Hock Ke Lok Po, 336 U.S., at 378
         Suarez v. Administrador del Deporte Hipico de Puerto Rico, 354 F. Supp. 320 (PR 1972)
         Torres v. Puerto Rico, 442 U.S. 465, 475 (1979)
         U.S.I. Properties Corp. v. M.D. Constr. Co., 230 F. 3d 489, 499–500 (1st Cir. 2000)
         United States v. Acosta-Martinez, 252 F. 3d 13, 18 (1st Cir. 2001
         United States v. Steele, 685 F. 2d 793, 805 n.7 (3d Cir. 1982)
          Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 , 30 L. ed. 220, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1064;
          Welch v. Cook, 97 U.S. 541 , 24 L. ed. 1112;
          Wong Wing v. United States, 163 U.S. 228 , 41 L. ed. 140, 16 Sup. Ct. Rep. 977
          
STATUTES:

         7 Fam 1121.2-1 Definition Of Terms  
         Foraker Act Of 1900
         Constitution Of The Commonwealth Of Puerto Rico
         Constitution of the United States
         Revised Statute 1891
         The Nationality Act Of 1952
         U.S. Organic Act Of 1917 (48 U. S. C., Sec. 737)
         U.S. Public Law Num. 362 of 1947  
         U.S. Public Law 600 Of 1950 (Jones Act Of 1917)
          
OFFICIAL REPORTS:
          
         CRS Report for Congress: Presidential Elections in the Unites States
         Report of the President's Task Force on the Political Status of Puerto Rico
         House Bill H.R. 2499
         OTHER SOURCES
         Federalist Papers Number 80," The Powers of the Judiciary (Hamilton)
         Wickipedia Enciclopedia


Appendix A-1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
CONSEJO DE SALUD PLAYA DE PONCE, et.al.,Plaintiffs, v. JOHNNY RULLAN, SECRETARY OF HEALTH OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO, Defendant
CIVIL NO. 06-1260 (GAG) AND CIVIL NO. 06-1524 (GAG) (CONSOLIDATED)

Appendix A-2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
CONSEJO DE SALUD PLAYA PONCE, et. al, Plaintiffs v. JOHNNY RULLAN, SECRETARY OF HEALTH OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO, Defendant
CIVIL NO. 06-1260 (GAG), 06-1524 (GAG)

Appendix B
No. 05-1410
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
EMMA RODRIGUEZ, PETITIONER v. PUERTO RICO FEDERAL AFFAIRS ADMINISTRATION, ET AL., RESPONDENTS
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, INTERVENTOR

Appendix C
PRECEDENTIAL, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 08-1220
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v .MARCO LABOY-TORRES,
Hon. Sandra Day O’Connor, Associate Justice (Ret.) of the *
Supreme Court of the United States, sitting by designation.





INTRODUCTION

            In The Report By The Presidents' Task Force On Puerto Rico's Political Status the members wrote:
“Puerto Rico is an “unincorporated” territory, which means that it is not intended to become a State.
It therefore is subject only to the most fundamental provisions of the U.S. Constitution. As part of the process of becoming a State, a territory becomes “incorporated” into the United States by Congress. An incorporated territory is subject to the entire U.S. Constitution except for those provisions that expressly apply only to States. In addition, an “incorporated territory” is subject to the Constitution’s Tax Uniformity Clause, which requires that all Federal “Duties, Imposts, and Excises” be uniform throughout “the United States.” Puerto Rico’s residents are currently exempt from most Federal income tax laws and receive certain tax preferences. If Puerto Rico were incorporated (or admitted), the Constitution would generally no longer allow such preferential treatment, but would probably allow a transition period to minimize economic dislocation.”

            In The Report By The President's Task Force On Puerto Rico's Political Status the members erroneously wrote “Puerto Rico is an “unincorporated” territory..."  The members of the Task Force, already occupying important positions in the administration of President George W. Bush, may have not had the time to examine the meaning of the terms "unincorporated territory" and "incorporated territory."  Therefore, it seems they picked up the most common expressions found anywhere and proceeded to insert them in the Report.  The above paragraph, and the one cited in the last section of this report, are repugnant to the U.S. constitutional history of the Supreme Court of the United States with respect to the territory of Puerto Rico, and other territories as well.
            In this statement I shall present empirical evidence that Puerto Rico was indeed incorporated in 1947 by means of Public Law 362.  Should the Task Force find that I am correct, for I am not a lawyer, I respectfully request from them to amend the Report accordingly.  But before I reach this point, I will take you step by step to this determination.
            The critical questions that need to be addressed include definitions of incorporated territory as per the different visions of the Justices of the Supreme Court.  Inquiries also need to be made as to how incorporation is achieved.  We must also determine whether Puerto Rico in effect achieved incorporation according to the decisions of the Supreme Court Justices.
            Before addressing these issues we need to ask ourselves why, in so many instances and decisions by the courts, Puerto Rico is treated like a State.  An unincorporated territory would never be treated as a State by the Courts because it would be inappropriate.  So, let's set up the stage by looking at some instances in which the court calls Puerto Rico a State.
            In the U.S. Constitution, the Court has recognized that the word “State” is applied to the federal (geographical and political) state, as well as to the “national” state - meaning the people of the State - the body politic.  The body politic of Puerto Rico, that is, the commonwealth, is treated like a State within the national character of the Constitution.  In Calero-Toledo v. Pearson Yacht Leasing Co., 416 u.s. 663, 672-674 (1974) , we find the following: 
“These significant changes in Puerto Rico's governmental structure formed the backdrop to Judge Magruder's observations in Mora v. Mejias, 206 F.2d 377 (CA1 1953):
            "[I]t may be that the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico - `El Estado Libre Asociado de Puerto Rico' in the Spanish version - organized as a body politic by the people of Puerto Rico under their own constitution, pursuant to the terms of the compact offered to them in Pub. L. 600, and by them accepted, is a State within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. 2281."  (My insert - Section 2281, act June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 968, provided that an interlocutory or permanent injunction restraining the enforcement, operation or execution of a State statute on grounds of unconstitutionality should not be granted unless the application has been heard and determined by a three-judge district court).
                "The preamble to this constitution refers to the Commonwealth '...which `in the exercise of our natural rights, we [the people of Puerto Rico] now create within our union with the United States of America.' Puerto Rico has thus not become a State in the federal Union like the 48 States, but it would seem to have become a State within a common and accepted meaning of the word. Cf. State of Texas v. White, 1868, 7 Wall. 700, 721.  It is a political entity created by the act and with the consent of the people of Puerto Rico and joined in union with the United States of America under the terms of the compact.
                "A serious argument could therefore be made that the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico is a State within the intendment and policy of 28 U.S.C. 2281. . . . If the constitution of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico is really a `constitution' - as the Congress says it is, 66 Stat. 327, - and not just another Organic [416 U.S. 663, 673] Act approved and enacted by the Congress, then the question is whether the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico is to be deemed `sovereign over matters not ruled by the Constitution' of the United States and thus a `State' within the policy of 28 U.S.C. 2281, which enactment, in prescribing a three-judge federal district court, expresses `a deference to state legislative action beyond that required for the laws of a territory' [Stainback v. Mo Hock Ke Lok Po, 336 U.S., at 378 ] whose local affairs are subject to congressional regulation." 206 F.2d, at 387-388 (footnote omitted).
                "Lower federal courts since 1953 have adopted this analysis and concluded that Puerto Rico is to be deemed "sovereign over matters not ruled by the Constitution" and thus a State within the policy of the Three-Judge Court Act. See Mora v. Mejias, 115 F. Supp. 610 (PR 1953); 9 Marin v. University of Puerto Rico, 346 F. [416 U.S. 663, 674] Supp. 470, 481 (PR 1972); Suarez v. Administrador del Deporte Hipico de Puerto Rico, 354 F. Supp. 320 (PR 1972).”

            A three judge federal district court is a State institution not subject to the territorial clause of the Constitution and outside congressional regulation.  As such, the commonwealth of the  territory behaves as a sovereign entity, as any State does. 
            The above brings us to the argument that being or not a federal state, to determine constitutional application, does not seem to hold in every instance in the case of Puerto Rico.  For there are provisions of the U.S. Constitution which are clearly aimed at the several states, yet apply to Puerto Rico as if it were a state.  For example: 
Section 8.
Article I - "Congress shall have the power ...to...regulate Commerce...among the several states. ...to provide for organizing...the Militia,... reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers...."
Section 10.
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; ... No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, ...
No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace,...

            These provisions, as well as many others in the Constitution and in federal law, apply to Puerto Rico as if it were a State.  The following quote by former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor (United States Court of Appeals For The Third District, No. 08-1220, pages 13-16, United States of America v. Marco Laboy Torres (see Appendix C)) is very eloquent in this regard.  Please notice the so many different sources:
To the contrary, we conclude that Congress intended to include Puerto Rican convictions as predicates for purposes of 14 §922(g)(1). This conclusion is consistent with Congress’ and courts’ treatment of Puerto Rico in other contexts.
                Puerto Rico possesses “a measure of autonomy comparable to that possessed by the States.” Examining Board, 426 U.S. at 597; see also United States v. Acosta-Martinez, 252 F. 3d 13, 18 (1st Cir. 2001) (“Congress maintains similar powers over Puerto Rico as it possesses over the federal states.”).
                Like the States, it has a republican form of government, organized pursuant to a constitution adopted by its people, and a bill of rights. E.g., 48 U. S. C. §§731b–731e.
                This government enjoys the same immunity from suit possessed by the States, Ramirez v. Puerto Rico Fire Service, 715 F. 2d 694, 697 (1st Cir. 1983).
                Like the States, Puerto Rico lacks “the full sovereignty of an independent nation,” for example, the power to manage its “external relations with other nations,” which was retained by the Federal Government. Americana of Puerto Rico, Inc. v. Kaplus, 368 F. 2d 431, 435 (3d Cir. 1966).
                As with citizens of the States, Puerto Rican citizens are accorded United States citizenship, id., at 434, and the fundamental protections of the United States Constitution, supra, at 11.
                The rights, privileges, and immunities attendant to United States citizenship are “respected in Puerto Rico to the same extent as though Puerto Rico were a State of the Union.” 48 U. S. C. §737.
                Finally, Puerto Rican judgments are guaranteed the same full faith and credit as are those of the States. 28 U. S. C. §1738; Americana of Puerto Rico, Inc., 368 F.2d at 437.15.
It is thus not surprising that “although Puerto Rico is not a state in the federal Union, ‘it . . . seem[s] to have become a State within a common and accepted meaning of the word.’ ” United States v. Steele, 685 F. 2d 793, 805 n.7 (3d Cir. 1982) (quoting Mora v. Mejias, 206 F. 2d 377, 387 (1st Cir. 1953)); see also Calero-Toledo, 416 U.S. at 672 (quoting the same passage with approval). Consistent with this common and accepted understanding, Congress frequently uses the term “State” to refer also to Puerto Rico. Indeed, it did so in the section at issue here, §922(a)(2)(c). See also, e.g., 15 U. S. C. §1171(b) (transportation of gambling devices); 16 U. S. C. §3371(h) (transportation of illegally taken wildlife); 18 U. S. C. §891(8) (extortionate credit transactions); 18 U. S. C. §1953(d)(1) (interstate transport ati on of wageri ng paraphernalia); 18 U. S. C. §1955(b)(3) (illegal gambling); 18 U. S. C. §1961(2) (racketeering influenced and corrupt organizations); 28 U. S. C. §1332(d) (defining “state” for purposes of diversity jurisdiction). More significantly, when Congress fails explicitly to refer to Puerto Rico, courts must nonetheless inquire whether it intended to do so. E.g., Puerto Rico v. Shell Co. (P. R.), Ltd., 302 U.S. 253 (1937) (determining a statute’s applicability to Puerto Rico is a question of congressional intent); Acosta-Martinez, 252 F. 3d at 11 (“When determining the applicability of a federal statute to Puerto Rico, courts must construe the language . . . to effectuate the intent of the lawmakers.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).

Conducting this inquiry, courts routinely conclude that Congress intended to include Puerto Rico even when a statute is silent on 16 that front. E.g., Examining Board, 426 U.S. at 597 (defining “State” to include Puerto Rico for purposes of 42 U. S. C. §1983 and 28 U. S. C. §1343(3)); Americana of Puerto Rico, Inc., 368 F. 2d, at 437 (federal statute that referred to the proceedings of any “State, Territory, or Possession,” applied to Puerto Rico even though Puerto Rico was not a State, Territory, or Possession); U.S.I. Properties Corp. v. M.D. Constr. Co., 230 F. 3d 489, 499–500 (1st Cir. 2000) (defining “State” to include Puerto Rico for purposes of diversity jurisdiction under 28 U. S. C. §1332); Cordova & Simonpietri Insurance Agency Inc. v. Chase Manhattan Bank N. A., 649 F. 2d 36, 38 (1st Cir. 1981) (treating Puerto Rico as a “State” under the Sherman Antitrust Act).

 Of particular relevance here, courts—including this one—have included Puerto Rican convictions when construing statutory references to predicate “State” offenses. For example, in United States v. Steele, 685 F. 2d 793, 805 (3d Cir. 1982), this Court construed the definition of predicate offenses under the Travel Act, 18 U. S. C. §1952.

            Under what conviction or understanding is it possible that the court would treat a territory as if it were a State?  The answer is in the Connecticut Compromise reached at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in 1787.  The Connecticut Compromise was based on the recognition of a double character in the U.S. Constitution:  The Federal character and the National character (which means the people of the States).  It is said that if this compromise had not been made, the Constitution would have not survived.  Yet, it was approved by a margin of one vote, and, in my opinion, created prospectively a division in the Constitution between its full application to a State, and selected provisions applicable to non-States under the jurisdiction of the United States.  This is where the foundation starts when differentiating between unincorporated territories, incorporated territories and States:
            Unincorporated Territories - only the most fundamental provisions of the Constitution for the protection of life, liberty and property apply;
            Incorporated Territories - the national character of the Constitution applies to the people which become members of the Union of Citizens created by the Constitution; and the territory becomes an integral part of the geographical boundaries of the United States.  While the territory, the land, remains as such, the body politic becomes a State as far as the Constitution is concerned;
            States - a sovereign entity where the full national and federal characters of the Constitution apply.  They become signators to the Constitution - owners of the Constitution.
            The present situation is that all provisions pertaining to the "national" character of the Constitution apply to Puerto Rico.  Which is why it is referred to as a State in so many decisions of the court.  So the question is how did Puerto Rico come about to be regarded by the Supreme Court as a State?  The answer must be that a determination has been made by Congress to incorporate Puerto Rico into the United States!
            At this point in time it becomes important to understand why this determination must be officially recognized as having occurred.  That is the importance of Section I of this statemet.  Then, we are brought back to the critical questions that need to be addressed and include how incorporation is achieved and what it entails, and how Puerto Rico became an incorporated territory of the United States of America.  The analyses follow.

I.         Importance and Need of the Determination to Recognize That Puerto Rico      Has Already Being Incorporated Into the United States of America.

            A.        Of great importance is that it has been said that the main effect of incorporation of a territory is that it cannot be disincorporated from the United States.  It falls within the geographical boundaries of the United States  Wickipedia Enciclopedia:      
            “An incorporated territory of the United States a term that applies to specific area under the jurisdiction of the United States over which the United States Congress has applied the full corpus of the United States Constitution as it applies to the several U.S. states. It thus refers to lands which have fully incorporated into the United States itself, rather than being mere possessions of the United States. Thus the term "incorporated" here is somewhat synonymous with "included" and does not refer to the act of creating a civil government entity. Incorporation is regarded as a permanent condition. Thus once incorporated, an incorporated territory can no longer be de-incorporated. That is, it can never be disincluded from the jurisdiction of the United States Constitution.” (Our emphasis).

            While Wickipedia is not exactly a good source, its wording is perfect for our purpose.  It clearly indicates that the territory becomes part of the United States, in a manner similar to the Northwestern Territory ceded by the States and which became the first territories to be incorporated.  The Wickipedia definition expands appropriately on the definition of incorporated territory by the US Office of Insular Affairs as it appears in its website, which reads:
            Equivalent to  Territory, a United States insular area, of which only one territory exists currently, Palmyra Atoll, in which the United States Congress has applied the full corpus  of the United States Constitution as it applies in the several States. Incorporation is interpreted as a perpetual state.  Once incorporated, the Territory can no longer be de-incorporated. 
            Such wording can be readily inferred from Delima v. Bidwell,182 U.S. 1, 187 (1901):


"...by treaty between the United States and the French Republic of April 30, 1803, France ceded to the United States, "forever and in full sovereignty, the said territory with all its rights and appurtenances," with a provision (Art. 3) "that the inhabitants of the ceded territory shall be incorporated in the Union of the United States, and admitted as soon as possible, according to the principles of the federal Constitution."  (Our emphasis).


            Similar wording can be found in Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244, 308 (1901) where the court makes the following statement as part of a larger issue:
It being true that incorporation must necessarily follow the retention of the territory, it would result that the United States must abandon all hope of recouping itself for the loss suffered by the unjust war, and hence the whole burden would be entailed upon the people of the United States.”  (Our emphasis)

            Also from Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244, 311-312 (1901):
While no particular provision of the Constitution is referred to, to sustain the argument that it is impossible to acquire territory by treaty without immediate and absolute incorporation, it is said that the spirit of the Constitution excludes the conception of property or dependencies possessed by the United States and which are not so completely incorporated as to be in all respects a part of the United States; that the theory upon which the Constitution proceeds is that of confederated and independent states, and that no territory, therefore, can be acquired which does not contemplate statehood, and excludes the acquisition of [182 U.S. 244, 312]   any territory which is not in a position to be treated as an integral part of the United States.  But this reasoning is based on political, and not judicial, considerations. Conceding that the conception upon which the Constitution proceeds is that no territory, as a general rule, should be acquired unless the territory may reasonably be expected to be worthy of statehood, the determination of when such blessing is to be bestowed is wholly a political question, and the aid of the judiciary cannot be invoked to usurp political discretion in order to save the Constitution from imaginary or even real dangers. The Constitution may not be saved by destroying its fundamental limitations.  (Our emphasis)

            Similar wording is also found in Rassmussen v. The United States (197 U.S. 516, 520 (1905)):
            “...following the ruling announced in Hawaii v. Mankichi, 190 U.S. 197 , 47 L. ed. 1016, 23 Sup. Ct. Rep. 787, it was decided that, whilst by the treaty with Spain the Philippine Islands had come under the sovereignty of the United States and were subject to its control as a dependency or possession, those islands had not been incorporated into the United States as a part thereof, and therefore Congress, in legislating concerning them, was subject only to the provisions of the Constitution applicable to territory occupying that relation.  (Our emphasis)

            It is evident from the sentences emphasized in these quotes that when Congress incorporates a territory it is made an integral part of the geographical boundaries of the United States and cannot be de-incorporated.  It is also implied that the territory is on a clear path to full statehood when its citizens ask for it and Congress accepts.  Thus, an incorporated territory has only two political status options: To remain as a territory or to request admission as a full State. Separation is not an option.
            If this is correct, and Puerto Rico has already been incorporated into the United States, the Report by the Presidential Task Force on the Political Status of Puerto Rico is wrong in two important counts:
1.                  The Task Force did not recognize that incorporation has already taken effect in Puerto Rico;
2.                  The Task Force suggested that if the People of Puerto Rico wish to end the territorial condition, two options are recommended:
" One is statehood. Under this option, Puerto Rico would become the 51st State with standing equal to the other 50 States.  The other is independence. Under this option, Puerto Rico would become a separate, independent sovereign nation."

            By recommending independence, the Task Force could be inducing the Congress to err.  These recommendations have been included in H.R.2499, a bill now in consideration in the U.S. House of Representatives. Should H.R. 2499 pass in the U.S. House and the U.S. Senate, and it is later found that independence was not an option because Puerto Rico is already incorporated, the consequences are beyond my imagination.
            B.        There is also an educational spin-off of tremendous value.  It is important to consider that the People of Puerto Rico have been led to believe that in the Act of U.S. Public Law 600 of 1950, a "new political status was created" in which Puerto Rico ceased to be a territory of the United States. The term "commonwealth" was substituted by the Spanish phrase "Estado Libre Asociado," which translates in English to "Free Associated State." This new name helped to emphasise the "new political status," as separate from the United States, though in association with "them" through common U.S. citizenship, common defense, common market and common currency, even though these conditions had been with us prior to 1952 as citizens of the U S. The notion of a “new political status” was evident in Torres v. Puerto Rico, 442 U.S. 465, 472 (1979):      
            “Puerto Rico then asks us to recognize an "intermediate border" between the Commonwealth and the rest of the United States. In support of this proposal it points to its unique political status, and to the fact that its borders as an island are in fact international borders with respect to all countries except the United States. Finally, Puerto Rico urges that because of the seriousness of the problems created by an influx of weapons and narcotics, it should have the same freedom to search persons crossing its "intermediate border" as does the United States with respect to incoming international travelers.”

            From 1952 on, the Puerto Rico Federal Relations Act disappeared from public discussion and all talks centered on the new constitution.  Advocates of the "new political status" managed to project a profound differentiation between "them" (the Americans) and "us" (Puerto Ricans); the premise has been that we are not Americans, we are Puerto Ricans; we do not belong to the Union of Citizens of the U S, though we do “have” U.S. Citizenship, which allows us “to travel freely to the United States.”  The majority of the members of the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, defenders of the status quo since 1952, have done everything possible to protect it, even if in conflict with Federal Laws.
            Last, but not least, in the solution of the political status problem of Puerto Rico, advocates of "Estado Libre Asociado" (ELA) since 1967 have pursued "an enhanced option of ELA" with autonomous powers delegated from the Congress, powers that were delegated in the first place to the Congress and which it has no authority to delegate forward, much less to a territory under its sovereignty. They claim that because Puerto Rico is a territory and not a geographical State, it only needs the political will of the Congress to grant those powers to the territory under the territorial clause.
            The present political ordainment, not a political status as a sovereign, has been projected as a permanent political status, unique and "apart" from the Union, with attributes of U.S. citizenship.  The U.S. Constitution, like the Puerto Rico Federal Relations Act, is also invisible to the population.
            This notion that "we do not belong" is further emphasised by the decisions of the Court in the Insular Cases that the Congress can treat the citizens of a territory in a lesser degree than those in a State. The Insular Cases are still with us in spite of being decided over a century ago and many of its conclusions are no longer sustained.  Consequently, the people of Puerto Rico, citizens of the United States, do not feel, much less understand, the total and explicit protection of the U.S. Constitution; worse yet, they do not know the U.S. Constitution applies to them nor its impact on them; because everything that has happened in Puerto Rico has been the result of the Constitution of the "Estado Libre Asociado" as a separate entity of the U.S..
            Independence advocates see the United States as an intruder in Puerto Rico. And statehood advocates, also victims, do not know what statehood entails, except "for the economic benefits of U.S.  Citizenship and ease of travel.”
         In spite of all the disinformation, the wish for permanent union with the United States is manifest in over 90% of the voting population in all electoral or status events.  But such a wish is not the result of a claim for full rights as Citizens of the United States under the US Constitution, but of a mere sense of dependency for economic benefits.  The general feeling that has been inflicted on the Us Citizens of Puerto Rico that they are apart from the Union, has rendered them incapable of participating in the political process, more so incapable to recognize their rights as citizens of the United States to fully participate within the scope of the Constitution. 
            The Constitution of the United States is our constitution as citizens of the United States; the president of the United States is our president; the Congress of the United States is our Congress; the laws approved by the Congress and signed by the President are our laws;  the different rights,-  civil, political or otherwise, -that are ours under this condition, are simply ignored by the US Citizens in Puerto Rico as a consequence of the indoctrination process we have suffered under the hoax of an Estado Libre Asociado that has never been.  It was a mirage, and still is for many people.
            Thus, a declaration of incorporation would have a profound educational effect, that would destroy the abuse this hoax has perpetrated on the US Citizens of Puerto Rico, through a resulting and very effective educational process.
II.     How Incorporation Is Achieved:  The Supreme Court Has Defined and           Recognized The Existence of a Process That Leads To Incorporation.

            Given the various types of territories that the United States has incorporated (Northwest Territory already owned since the Articles of Confederation; California, Mexico by war; Florida by purchase; etc), throughout several decisions the court has established a three stage process to incorporate a territory like Puerto Rico, which in its own words in Delima v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 1, 210 (1901) :
The question now to be considered relates to territories previously subject to the acknowledged jurisdiction of another sovereign, such as was Florida to the Crown of Spain. And on this subject we have the most explicit proof that the understanding of our public functionaries is that the government and laws of the United States do not extend to such territory by the mere act of cession.”.

            It is not the same to incorporate a contiguous territory than it is to incorporate a distant territory.  Neither is it the same to incorporate a distant, yet sparsely populous territory, than a distant and populous territory.  In evaluating the different circumstances of different territories, that court has produced three requirements for incorporation.  First, there must be affiniti between the culture of the people of the territory and the culture and principles behind the U.S. Constitution.  Second, U.S. Citizenship must be granted.  Third, and most conclusive, the “privileges and immunities" clause is then extended to the People of the Territory.  Let us look at these decisions:

First, Cultural Affinity.  The Insular Cases establish this principle in a very clear setting.  In Downes vs Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244, 279-283, (1901)) the court said:
               “We are also of opinion that the power to acquire territory by treaty implies, not only the power to govern such territory, but to prescribe upon what terms the United States will receive its inhabitants, and what their status shall be in what Chief Justice Marshall termed the 'American empire.' There seems to be no middle ground between this position and the doctrine that if their inhabitants do not become, immediately upon annexation, citizens of the United States, their children thereafter born, whether savages or civilized, are such, and entitled to all the rights, privileges and immunities of citizens. If such be their status, the consequences will be extremely serious. Indeed, it is doubtful if Congress would ever assent to the annexation of territory upon the condition that its inhabitants, however foreign they may be to our habits, traditions, and modes [182 U.S. 244, 280]   of life, shall become at once citizens of the United States.  ...In all these cases (Florida, Louisiana and Mexico) there is an implied denial of the right of the inhabitants to American citizenship until Congress by further action shall signify its assent thereto.

So too, in Johnson v. M'Intosh, 8 Wheat. 543, 583, 5 L. ed. 681, 691, it was said by him:
'The title by conquest is acquired and maintained by force. The conqueror prescribes its limits. Humanity, however, acting on public opinion, has established, as a general rule, that the conquered shall not be wantonly oppressed, and that their condition shall remain as eligible as is compatible with the objects of the conquest. Most usually they are incorporated with the victorious nation and become subjects or citizens of the government with which they are connected. The new and old members of the society mingle with each other; the distinction between them is gradually lost, and they make one people. Where this incorporation is practicable humanity demands, and a wise policy requires, that the rights of the conquered to property should remain unimpaired; that the new subjects should be governed as equitably as the old; and that confidence in their security should gradually banish the painful sense of being separated from their ancient connections and united by force to strangers.

“It is obvious that in the annexation of outlying and distant possessions grave questions will arise from differences of race, habits, laws, and customs of the people, and from differences of soil, climate, and production, which may require action on the part of Congress that would be quite unnecessary in the annexation of contiguous territory inhabited only by people of the same race, or by scattered bodies of native Indians.
“We suggest, without intending to decide, that there may be a distinction between certain natural rights enforced in the Constitution by prohibitions against interference with them, and what may be termed artificial or remedial rights which are peculiar to our own system of jurisprudence. Of the former class are the rights to one's own religious opinions and to a public expression of them, or, as sometimes said, to worship God according to the dictates of one's own conscience; the right to personal liberty and individual property; to freedom of speech and of the press; to free access to courts of justice, to due process of law, and to an equal protection of the laws; to immunities from unreasonable searches and seizures, as well as cruel and unusual punishments; and to such other immunities as are in- [182 U.S. 244, 283]   dispensable to a free government. Of the latter class are the rights to citizenship, to suffrage (Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, 22 L. ed. 627 ), and to the particular methods of procedure pointed out in the Constitution, which are peculiar to Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence, and some of which have already been held by the states to be unnecessary to the proper protection of individuals.
“Whatever may be finally decided by the American people as to the status of these islands and their inhabitants,-whether they shall be introduced into the sisterhood of states or be permitted to form independent governments,-it does not follow that in the meantime, a waiting that decision, the people are in the matter of personal rights unprotected by the provisions of our Constitution and subject to the merely arbitrary control of Congress. Even if regarded as aliens, they are entitled under the principles of the Constitution to be protected in life, liberty, and property. This has been frequently held by this court in respect to the Chinese, even when aliens, not possessed of the political rights of citizens of the United States. Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 , 30 L. ed. 220, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1064; Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 U.S. 698 , 37 L. ed. 905, 13 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1016; Lem Moon Sing, 158 U.S. 538, 547 , 39 S. L. ed. 1082, 1085, 15 Sup. Ct. Rep. 962; Wong Wing v. United States, 163 U.S. 228 , 41 L. ed. 140, 16 Sup. Ct. Rep. 977. We do not desire, however, to anticipate the difficulties which would naturally arise in this connection, but merely to disclaim any intention to hold that the inhabitants of these territories are subject to an unrestrained power on the part of Congress to deal with them upon the theory that they have no rights which it is bound to respect.
“If those possessions are inhabited by alien races, differing from us in religion, customs, laws, methods of taxation, and modes of thought, the administration of government and justice, according to Anglo-Saxon principles, may for a time be impossible; and the question at once arises whether large concessions ought not to be made for a time, that ultimately our own theories may be carried out, and the blessings of a free government under the Constitution extended to them. We decline to hold that there is anything in the Constitution to forbid such action.”

            I find it unnecessary to expand on this subjectJustice Brown made an eloquent statement regarding the need for what I call “cultural affinity” as a necessary first step for the eventual incorporation of a territory into the United States.  If this first step is not overcome, as it seems to have happened with Cuba and the Philipines, indisoluble ties are not created and the territory may be set free at its first request.

Second: Extension of U.S. Citizenship.
           
            We have already quoted in Downes (Supra) that “In all these cases (Florida, Louisiana and Mexico) there is an implied denial of the right of the inhabitants to American citizenship until Congress by further action shall signify its assent thereto.”  However, as part of the process of incorporation, also in Downes vs Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244, 254, (1901))it was said that the extension of U.S. Citizenship is essential:
Suffice it to say that the administration party took the ground that, under the constitutional power to make treaties, there was ample power to acquire territory, and to hold and govern it under laws to be passed by Congress; and that as Louisiana was incorporated into the Union as a territory, and not as a state, a stipulation for citizenship became necessary; that as a state they would not have needed a stipulation for the safety of their liberty, property, and religion, but as territory this stipulation would govern and restrain the undefined powers of Congress to 'make rules and regulations' for territories. (Our emphasis).

Further in Downes vs Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244, 332-333, (1901))
“The upper part of the province of Louisiana, designated by the act of March 26, 1804 (2 Stat. at L. 283, chap. 38), as the district of Louisiana, and by the act of March 3, 1805 (2 Stat. at L. 331, chap. 31), as the territory of Louisiana, was created the territory of Mis- [182 U.S. 244, 333]   souri on June 4, 1812. 2 Stat. at L. 743, chap. 95. By this latter act, though the ordinance of 1787 was not in express terms extended over the territory,-probably owing to the slavery agitation,-the inhabitants of the territory were accorded substantially all the rights of the inhabitants of the Northwest Territory. Citizenship was in effect recognized in the 9th section, while the 14th section contained an elaborate declaration of the rights secured to the people of the territory.
                “Pausing to analyze the practical construction which resulted from the acquisition of the vast domain covered by the Louisiana purchase, it indubitably results, first, that it was conceded by every shade of opinion that the government of the United States had the undoubted right to acquire, hold, and govern the territory as a possession, and that incorporation into the United States could under no circumstances arise solely from a treaty of cession, even although it contained provisions for the accomplishment of such result; second, it was strenuously denied by many eminent men that, in acquiring territory, citizenship could be conferred upon the inhabitants within the acquired territory; in other words, that the territory could be incorporated into the United States without an amendment to the Constitution; and, third, that the opinion which prevailed was that, although the treaty might stipulate for incorporation and citizenship under the Constitution, such agreements by the treaty-making power were but promises depending for their fulfilment on the furture action of Congress. In accordance with this view the territory acquired by the Louisiana purchase was governed as a mere dependency until, conformably to the suggestion of Mr. Jefferson, it was by the action of Congress incorporated as a territory into the United States, and the same rights were conferred in the same mode by which other territories had previously been incorporated, that is, by bestowing the privileges of citizenship and the rights and immunities which pertained to the Northwest Territory.  (Our emphasis).

            The reader should take notice that within these quotes there is a principle that can only be classified sine qua non:  The granting of U.S. Citizenship before incorporation takes form.  The reasoning for this requirement is simple:  The extension of the privileges and immunities clause of the U.S. Constitution, which produces the incorporation, can only happen on Citizens of the United States.  Citizenship alone can be extended without incorporation; but incorporation cannot happen without citizenship.  Here we see why the granting of citizenship is our second, fundamental requirement.

            In  Balzac v. People Of Porto Rico, 258 U.S. 298, 311 (1922) the court makes an interesting  statement that clearly differentiates between the granting of U.S. citizenship and   incorporation:
“...the United States has been liberal in granting to the islands acquired by the Treaty of Paris most of the American constitutional guaranties, but has been sedulous to avoid forcing a jury system on a Spanish and civillaw country until it desired it. We cannot find any intention to depart from this policy in making Porto Ricans American citizens, explained as this is by the desire to put them as individuals on an exact equality with citizens from the American homeland, to secure them more certain protection against the world, and to give them an opportunity, should they desire, to move into the United States proper, and there without naturalization to enjoy all political and other rights.

            In other words, the granting of American Citizenship to Puerto Ricans back in 1917 did not have the effect of incorporation.  Evidently the granting of American citizenship is essential for incorporation, though by itself is not enough.

Third:  The Extension of the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Constitution.

            We have already mentioned, without discussing the matter, that the extension of the privileges and immunities clause of the Constitution to the citizens in a territory produces its incorporation.  The court, however, offers two ways in which that extension could be made.  In Downes vs Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244, 319 (1901)) the Court also said:
            When the various treaties by which foreign territory has been acquired are considered in the light of the circumstances which surrounded them, it becomes to my mind clearly established that the treaty-making power was always deemed to be devoid of authority to incorporate territory into the United States without the assent, express or implied, of Congress, ...
           
Express or Implied?  In Balzac v. People Of Porto Rico, 258 U.S. 298, 306 (1922), where Mr. Chief Justice Taft delivered the opinion of the Court, the meaning of “implied” was specified:
"Had Congress intended to take the important step of changing the treaty status of Porto Rico by incorporating it into the Union, it is reasonable to suppose that it would have done so by the plain declaration, and would not have left it to mere inference. Before the question became acute at the close of the Spanish War, the distinction between acquisition and incorporation was not regarded as important, or at least it was not fully understood and had not aroused great controversy. Before that, the purpose of Congress might well be a matter of mere inference from various legislative acts; but in these latter days, incorporation is not to be assumed without express declaration, or an implication so strong as to exclude any other view." ( Our emphasis).

            What kind of declaration, express or implied, is required from Congress that will in effect produce the incorporation of a territory?  It is our position that the expression "an implication so strong as to exclude any other view" has already applied to Puerto Rico; that the Congress has approved legislation that has in fact incorporated the citizens of Puerto Rico and the territory of Puerto Rico into the United States without a formal declaration; that Puerto Rico has become an integral part of the United States, together with almost all other provisions of the U.S. Constitution that relate to the national character of the Union, except those that relate exclusively to the Federal Character of the Union. For an extensive discussion on this issue, included you will find an opinion by District Court Judge Gustavo Gelpí (Appendix A) as part of this statement.
            However, I am also of the opinion that the Congress has made an express declaration that in effect has incorporated Puerto Rico into the United States.  The discussion follows.
III.      How The People Of Puerto Rico, and the Territory, Have Been Incorporated          By The Congress With an Express Declaration.

            To summarize, the first and second  requirements for incorporation were met by 1917. The U.S. Organic Act of 1917 (48 U. S. C., sec. 737), commonly known as the Jones Act of 1917, granted U.S. Citizenship to the residents of Puerto Rico. The problem of affinity had been overcome, moving Congress to grant citizenship.  Though it was claimed that such step did not signify the granting of incorporation or of  Statehood, it cannot be dismissed that they were important steps in the process of incorporation.
The third requirement for incorporation is the actual incorporation of its body politic.  In Dorr v. USA (195 U.S. 138, 141-142 (1904)) Justice Marshall is quoted more extensively as follows:
'On the 2d of February, 1819, Spain ceded Florida to the United States. The 6th article of the treaty of cession contains the following provision:
'The inhabitants of the territories which His Catholic Majesty cedes the United States by this treaty shall be incorporated in the Union of the United States as soon as may be consistent with the principles of the Federal Constitution, and admitted to the enjoyment of the privileges, rights, and immunities of the citizens of the United States.' [8 Stat. at L. 256.]
[195 U.S. 138, 142] 'This treaty is the law of the land, and admits the inhabitants of Florida to the enjoyment of the privileges, rights, and immunities of the citizens of the United States. It is unnecessary to inquire whether this is not their condition, independent of stipulation. They do not, however, participate in political power; they do not share in the government till Florida shall become a state. In the meantime Florida continues to be a territory of the United States, governed by virtue of that clause in the Constitution which empowers Congress 'to make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States."  (Our emphasis).

            Here we see that the act of incorporation is on the people of the territory, not on the territory per se, by extending the privileges and immunities clause of the Constitution to them.  And the statement by Justice Marshall makes clear that incorporation does not change the status as a territory outside the federal character of the Constitution, until it "shall become a State."  In Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244, 321 (1901) the first mention of incorporation is made in the following paragraph by Mr. Justice Brown:
            In view of this it cannot, it seems to me, be doubted that the United States continued to be composed of states and territories, all forming an integral part thereof and incorporated therein, as was the case prior to the adoption of the Constitution. Subsequently, the territory now embraced in the state of Tennessee was ceded to the United States by the state of North Carolina. In order to insure the rights of the native inhabitants, it was expressly stipulated that the inhabitants of the ceded territory should enjoy all the rights, privileges, benefits, and advantages set forth in the ordinance 'of the late Congress for the government of the western territory of the United [182 U.S. 244, 322]   States.' (Our emphasis).

Also in Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244, 252 (1901)  it was said:
            "Owing to a new war between England and France being upon the point of breaking out, there was need for haste in the negotiations, and Mr. Livingston took the responsibility of disobeying his (Mr. Jefferson's) instructions, and, probably owing to the insistence of Bonaparte, consented to the 3d article of the treaty (with France to acquire the territory of Louisiana), which provided that 'the inhabitants of the ceded territory shall be incorporated in the Union of the United States, and admitted as soon as possible, according to the principles of the Federal Constitution, to the enjoyment of all the rights, advantages, and immunities of citizens of the United States; and in the meantime they shall be maintained and protected in the free enjoyment of their liberty, property, and the religion which they profess.' [8 Stat. at L. 202.] (Our emphasis)
              This evidently committed the government to the ultimate, but not to the immediate, admission of Louisiana as a state....”  (Our emphasis).

Further into Downes vs Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244, 256 (1901) Justice Brown says:
            "The same construction was adhered to in the treaty with Spain for the purchase of Florida (8 Stat. at L. 252) the 6th article of which provided that the inhabitants should 'be incorporated into the Union of the United States, as soon as may be consistent with the principles of the Federal Constitution;"

            Here we see that “the inhabitants should be incorporated.” In Rassmussen v. The United States (197 U.S. 516, 522 (1905)), the same principle is exposed:
                “The treaty concerning Alaska, instead of exhibiting, as did the treaty respecting the Philippine Islands, the determination to reserve the question of the status of the acquired territory for ulterior action by Congress, manifested a contrary intention, since it is therein expressly declared, in article 3, that:
'The inhabitants of the ceded territory . . . shall be admitted to the enjoyment of all the rights, advantages, and immunities of citizens of the United States; and shall be maintained and protected in the free enjoyment of their liberty, property and religion.' [15 Stat. at L. 542.]
                This declaration, although somewhat changed in phraseology, is the equivalent, as pointed out in Downes v. Bidwell, of the formula employed from the beginning to express the purpose to incorporate acquired territory into the United States, especially in the absence of other provisions showing an intention to the contrary."

            The Constitution of the United States was constructed to create a Union of Citizens, making it obvious that the incorporation of U.S. Citizens in a territory produces the incorporation of the territory, which would then be followed by its admission as a State if the people of the territory ask for it.  The preamble of the Constitution of the United States of America in part reads as follows:
                “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, ...do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

            It’s a people’s Constitution; and its fundamental purpose clearly flows from Section 2 of Article IV which states: 
                "The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states."

            It is evidently clear that such privileges and immunities are contained in the U.S. Constitution itself and the laws of Congress.  In the Federalist Papers Number 80," The Powers of the Judiciary" (Alexander Hamilton), we find the following statement:
"It may be esteemed the basis of the Union that 'the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens of the several States.'"

            The importance of Section 2 of Article IV of the U.S. Constitution has also been expressed in the Supreme Court (Tomes v. Witless, 334 U.S. 385, 395 (1948)): 
''The primary purpose of this clause, like the clauses between which it is located... was to help fuse into one Nation a collection of independent sovereign States.''

            "Fuse into one nation..." and nations are made of people.  Thus, the third requirement for the incorporation of Puerto Rico is found in 1947 when the Congress approved Public Law Num. 362 of 1947 for Puerto Rico and which states in one of its sections: 
            "Sec. 7. Section 2 of said Organic Act (48 U. S. C., sec. 737) is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new paragraph:
          The rights, privileges, and immunities of citizens of the United States shall be respected in Puerto Rico to the same extent as though Puerto Rico were a State of the Union and subject to the provisions of paragraph 1 of section 2 of article IV of the Constitution of the United States."

            This was, and is, an express declaration by Congress,  that in 1947 the Jones Act of 1917 was amended to incorporate the citizens of Puerto Rico into the United States, placing them at the same level as the inhabitants of Tennessee, Florida, Louisiana and Alaska when these citizens were incorporated as indicated before. 
Mr. Justice Brown, in Rassmussen v. The United States (197 U.S. 516, 533-534 (1905)), makes the following statement which is relevant to this statement:
"There are so many difficulties connected with the applicability of the Constitution that it has seemed to me that the only true test was whether Congress intended to apply it or not in the particular case."
...
Indeed, I regard the whole theory of the extension of the Constitution by the incorporation of territory as a new departure in Federal jurisprudence, and that the true answer to the question whether the Constitution applies to a territory is to be found in the fact whether Congress has extended the Constitution to it or not.

            A look at the Congressional Record pertaining to the approval of Public Law 362 of 1947 is eloquent in this regard:
                Section 8 would make Puerto Rico subject to the same extent as one of the States to the comity clause of article IV of the Constitution of the United States, extending to citizens of each State the privileges and immunities of the citizens of the several States. Congress has not expressly extended the Constitution to Puerto Rico, as it did In the case of Alaska and Hawaii, and the committee considered it advisable to bring Puerto Rico expressly within the operation of the comity clause so as to leave no doubt that there may be no discrimination against citizens of the United States who are not residents of Puerto Rico.

(Note:  Section 8 became Section 7 when one of the sections was removed from the bill).

            There is no doubt in my mind that the above paragraph of the Congressional record of the Senate is an express declaration, approved by the Congress, to extend the U.S. Constitution to the People of Puerto Rico, thus producing the incorporation of the territory.
            While the provision did not specifically mention incorporation (as in the case of Alaska),  it did not contain language "especially in the absence of other provisions showing an intention to the contrary."  Downes supra.  But it did read:  "Section 8 would make Puerto Rico subject to the same extent as one of the States to the comity clause of article IV of the Constitution of the United State."  It seems clear to me that the action by Congress completed the process of incorporation which started with the granting of Citizenship to Puerto Rico in 1917 as a result of overcoming the problem of cultural affinity..  It makes sense.  The privileges and immunities clause of the Constitution is its genesis; the reason why it exists.  And it was so for the Articles of Confederation.
            There is more, however, to this issue than meets the eye.  Of extreme importance is following the court’s opinion in Rassmusen (supra).  The opinion makes a distinction between the decision on the Philipines and that on Alaska: 
“The treaty concerning Alaska, instead of exhibiting, as did the treaty respecting the Philippine Islands, the determination to reserve the question of the status of the acquired territory for ulterior action by Congress, manifested a contrary intention....”

            Contrary to the Philipines (and Puerto Rico), in Alaska the intention was to incorporate it by stating:
The inhabitants of the ceded territory . . . shall be admitted to the enjoyment of all the rights, advantages, and immunities of citizens of the United States; and shall be maintained and protected in the free enjoyment of their liberty, property and religion.' [15 Stat. at L. 542.]  This declaration, although somewhat changed in phraseology, is the equivalent, as pointed out in Downes v. Bidwell, of the formula employed from the beginning to express the purpose to incorporate acquired territory into the United States, especially in the absence of other provisions showing an intention to the contrary."

            The extension of the priviliges and immunities clause of the Constitution to Alaska had the purpose to incorporate it.  But in the case of the Philipines such decision was postponed until further action by Congress.  Following this reasoning in Rassmussen Vs The United States (197 U.S. 516, 522 (1905)) (Supra), it can be concluded that Public Law 362 of 1947 in effect incorporated the inhabitants of Puerto Rico and repealled the section of the  Treaty of Peace with Spain in 1899 in which the  “politicfal status” of the inhabitants of Puerto Rico would be subject to ulterior action by Congress!  The “ulterior action by Congress” took place in 1947 according to the court in Rassmusen, whose opinion was made in 1904, 43 years earlier!
IV.     The Congress Has Made Other Incorporation Decisions on Puerto Rico        Without a Formal Declaration

            I cannot rest my case without further considerations.  The Jones Act of 1917 was split into two federal laws in the process of Public Law 600 of 1950. The name of the Jones Act was changed to the Puerto Rico Federal Relations Act, which contains the incorporation provision. The second document became the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico., which preamble in part reads:
            “We, the people of Puerto Rico, in order to organise ourselves politically on a fully democratic basis, ...do ordain and establish this Constitution for the commonwealth which, in the exercise of our natural rights, we now create within our union with the United States of America.
In so doing, we declare:
                ... We consider as determining factors in our life our citizenship of the United States of America and our aspiration continually to enrich our democratic heritage in the individual and collective enjoyment of its rights and privileges; our loyalty to the principles of the Federal Constitution; ... (Our emphasis).

            The Constitution was created "within our union" with the U.S.; with U.S. Citizenship and the enjoyment of its rights and privileges; and with loyalty to the Federal Constitution. Had this Constitution, which is a federal law, been applied to Puerto Rico and not to the Commonwealth only, it would have produced the admission of the territory as a State of the Union, because it contains a ratification of the application of the Constitution of the United States to Puerto Rico and its citizens.
            Incorporated territories, though not states, receive the full application of the Constitution, including the 14th Amendment. Here is the official definition for Incorporated Territory:
7 FAM 1121.2-1 Definition of Terms (TL:CON-66; 10-10-96):   The territories to which the Constitution is fully applicable are called "incorporated territories." It has been held that persons born in these territories on or after the date they became part of the United States could claim U.S. citizenship under the 14th Amendment. Section 1891, Rev. Stat., stated that: The Constitution... shall have the same force and effect within all organized Territories and every Territory hereafter organized as elsewhere in the United States. 

The full text of Section 1 of the 14th amendment is as follows:
Section1. All persons born or naturalised in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
            Has the Court recognized anywhere the applicability of the 14th Amendment to Puerto Rico?  Yes and I quote Harris Vs Rosario (446 U.S. 651, 652-653 (1980)). Said Justice Marshall in a dissenting opinion:
                “The first question that merits plenary attention is whether Congress, acting pursuant to the Territory Clause of the Constitution, U.S. Const., Art. IV, 3, cl. 2, "may treat Puerto [446 U.S. 651, 653] Rico differently from States so long as there is a rational basis for its actions." Ante, at 651-652. No authority is cited for this proposition. Our prior decisions do not support such a broad statement.
It is important to remember at the outset that Puerto Ricans are United States citizens, see 8 U.S.C. 1402, and that different treatment to Puerto Rico under AFDC may well affect the benefits paid to these citizens. While some early opinions of this Court suggested that various protections of the Constitution do not apply to Puerto Rico, see, e. g., Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244; Balzac v. Porto Rico, 258 U.S. 298 , the present validity of those decisions is questionable. See Torres v. Puerto Rico, 442 U.S. 465, 475 (BRENNAN, J., concurring in judgement).
We have already held that Puerto Rico is subject to the Due Process Clause of either the Fifth or Fourteenth Amendment, Calero-Toledo v. Pearson Yacht Leasing Co., 416 U.S. 663, 668 , and the equal protection guarantee of either the Fifth or the Fourteenth Amendment, Examining Board v. Flores de Otero, 426 U.S. 572, 599 .”  (Our emphasis).

            The preceding two paragraphs explicitly recognize, in the year 1980, that the fourteenth amendment already applied to Puerto Rico. That is only possible in an incorporated territory, though it has never been formally admitted. Justice Marshall continues in Harris Vs Rosario (446 U.S. 651, 653-654 (1980)):
“The Fourth Amendment is also fully applicable to Puerto Rico, either directly or by operation of the Fourteenth Amendment, Torres v. Puerto Rico, supra, at 471. At least four Members of this Court are of the view that all provisions [446 U.S. 651, 654] of the Bill of Rights apply to Puerto Rico. 442 U.S., at 475 (BRENNAN, J., joined by STEWART, MARSHALL, and BLACKMUN, JJ., concurring in judgement).
Despite these precedents, the Court suggests today, without benefit of briefing or argument, that Congress needs only a rational basis to support less beneficial treatment for Puerto Rico, and the citizens residing there, than is provided to the States and citizens residing in the States. Heightened scrutiny under the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment, the Court concludes, is simply unavailable to protect Puerto Rico or the citizens who reside there from discriminatory legislation, as long as Congress acts pursuant to the Territory Clause. Such a proposition surely warrants the full attention of this Court before it is made part of our constitutional jurisprudence.”

            Such condition is well behind us today. Yet I urge the Court to heed the advice of Justice Marshall and re-examine the decisions of the Insular Cases because they may not be valid any more. It must be remembered that the Insular Cases took place back in 1901-1906, when the territory was merely a possession and its people under U.S. nationality only. In Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957) the Court said:
                "The "Insular Cases," which arose at the turn of the century, involved territories which had only recently been conquered or acquired by the United States. These territories, governed and regulated by Congress under Art. IV, 3, 23 had entirely different cultures and customs from those of this country. This Court, although closely divided, ruled that certain constitutional safeguards were not applicable to these territories since they had not been "expressly or impliedly incorporated" into the Union by Congress."

            We have already seen that Congress has made an express declaration to incorporate Puerto Rico.  And in Appendix A Judge Gelpí has made reference to implied actions by Congress.
            The court has also claimed that the occupation, cession or whatever of a territory does not immediately oblige the Congress to incorporate the territory. Basically the court contends that there ought to be a time of appeasement to allow the two factions to relate to each other before making any more commitments with each other. That was the spirit of the Insular Cases in dealing with newly acquired territories from Spain after the Hispanic-American War.
            I contend that we have passed this test a long time ago; we are not "a strange people" and have not been so for a long time. We are not immigrants. The U.S. Constitution is our Constitution as Citizens of the United States, not merely as living in a territory of the United States.  In Martin v. Hunter, 4L. ed. 103, the court said:
"...In view of the adjudication of this court (it) cannot assent to the proposition, whether it be announced in express words or by implication, that the national government is a government of or by the states in union, and that the prohibitions and limitations of the Constitution are addressed only to the states.... ...If the National Government is in any sense a compact, it is a compact between the people of the United States among themselves as constituting in the aggregate the political community by whom the national government was established. The Constitution speaks, not simply to the states in their organized capacities, but to all peoples, whether states or territories, who are subject to the authority of the United States." (Our emphasis).

I expand further on this issue:
"The idea that this country may acquire territories anywhere upon the earth, by conquest or treaty, and hold them as mere colonies or provinces,--the people inhabiting them to enjoy only those rights as Congress chooses to accord to them,--is wholly inconsistent with the spirit and genius, as well as with the words, of the Constitution.". Downes, 182 U.S. at 380 (Harlan, J., dissenting)

            It can be definitely concluded that the body politic of the U.S. Citizens in Puerto Rico has been formally incorporated into the United States of America, according to the criteria set forth by the Insular Cases and other later opinions of the Supreme Court.  In consequence, the territory of Puerto Rico has also been incorporated.

Incorporation of the Body Politic Produces Incorporation of the Territory of Puerto Rico

            We now move to the territory per se and its relation to the geographical boundaries of the United States. That Puerto Rico is part of the geographical United States is found in the official definition of the latter:  
“The term ''United States'', except as otherwise specifically herein provided, when used in a geographical sense, means the continental United States, Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands of the United States.” 7 FAM 1121.4-2 Under the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (INA)

            Under this federal definition, the provisions of the U.S. Constitution that relate to the geographical boundaries of the United States and their relationships within, apply to Puerto Rico as if it were a State, fully incorporated.  The Nationality Act of 1952 reads as follows:
"All persons born in Puerto Rico on or after January 13, 1941, and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, are citizens of the United States at birth.”

            This provision in U.S. Code 1402 is significant when compared with the first paragraph of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It reads: Section. 1. All persons born or naturalised in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
            By approving U.S.C. 1402, the Congress granted to the territory of Puerto Rico the power to give birth to full fledge U.S. citizens, as if it were a state. In our opinion only an incorporated territory can do that because it has become an integral part of the Union.   Thus, the Congressional Research Service has ruled that : 
                “Citizens born in Guam, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands are legally defined as "natural born" citizens, and are, therefore, also eligible to be elected President, provided they meet qualifications of age and 14 years residence within the United States. Residence in Puerto Rico and U.S. territories and possessions does not qualify as residence within the United States for these purposes. [U.S. Library of Congress, Congressional Research Service, U.S. Insular Areas and Their Political Development, "CRS Report for Congress: Presidential Elections in the Unites States", by Andorra Bruno and Garrine P Laney, CRS Report 96-578GOV (Washington: Jun. 17, 1996), pp. 9, 21, 33].”

            Can a mere territory create “natural born citizens”, that can be “presidential candidates”?  Moreover, we look into the extent that the U.S. Constitution applies to Puerto Rico and its citizens. If we are born U.S. Citizens at birth, that can only mean that the Constitution applies to Puerto Rico and its citizens by its very own force, as if Puerto Rico were a State, only limited by the federal character of the Constitution which limits political rights in the territory.
V.      An Analogy Between Alaska in Rassmussen Vs The United States (197 U.S.           516    (1905)) and the U.S. Code Regarding Puerto Rico

            Does Puerto Rico meet the criteria of being an incorporated territory  beyond what we have already expressed? Besides all the aforementioned information, the Rassmussen Vs The United States (197 U.S. 516, 523, 533-534) case has more conditions to be met by a territory in order to be considered an incorporated territory:
            "That Congress, shortly following the adoption of the treaty with Russia, clearly contemplated the incorporation of Alaska into the United States as a part thereof, we think plainly results from the act of July 20, 1868, concerning internal revenue taxation, chap. 186, 107 (15 Stat. at L. 167, U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 2277), and the act of July 27, 1868, chap. 273, extending the laws of the United States relating to customs, commerce, and navigation over Alaska, and establishing a collection district therein. 15 Stat. at L. 240. And this is fortified by subsequent action of Congress, which it is unnecessary to refer to."

Mr. Justice Brown, in his concurring opinion, also expressed the same thought:
                Apparently, acceptance of the territory is insufficient in the opinion of the court in this case, since the result that Alaska is incorporated into the United States is reached, not through the treaty with Russia, or through the establishment of a civil government there, but from the act of July 20, 1868, concerning internal revenue taxation, and the act of July 27, 1868, extending the laws of the United States relating to the customs, commerce, and navigation over Alaska, and establishing a collection district there. Certain other acts are cited, notably the judiciary act of March 3, 1891, making it the duty of this court to assign [197 U.S. 516, 534]   the several territories of the United States to particular Circuits.

            We shall now look at these and other issues that clearly reflect, by implication, the incorporation of the territory of Puerto Rico into the United States.

Internal Revenue Taxation
            Sections 734 and 734a of Title 48 of the U.S. Code make Puerto Rico compliant with parts of these conditions:
Sec. 734. - United States laws extended to Puerto Rico; internal revenue receipts covered into treasury:
                The statutory laws of the United States not locally inapplicable, except as hereinbefore or hereinafter otherwise provided, shall have the same force and effect in Puerto Rico as in the United States, except the internal revenue laws other than those contained in the Philippine Trade Act of 1946 (22 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) or the Philippine Trade Agreement Revision Act of 1955 (22 U.S.C. 1371 et seq.): Provided, however, That after May 1, 1946, all taxes collected under the internal revenue laws of the United States on articles produced in Puerto Rico and transported to the United States, or consumed in the island shall be covered into the treasury of Puerto Rico
           
            In this section it is clearly established that taxes are collected under the "internal revenue laws of the United States," not under local and separate laws.  Two sections of Subpart D of Chapter 1 of Title 26 On The Internal Revenue Code, dealing with tax collections in Puerto Rico state:
Section 933. Income from sources within Puerto Rico U.S. Code as of: 01/22/02.  The following items shall not be included in gross income and shall be exempt from taxation under this subtitle:
(1) Resident of Puerto Rico for entire taxable year
In the case of an individual who is a bona fide resident of Puerto Rico during the entire taxable year, income derived from sources within Puerto Rico (except amounts received for services performed as an employee of the United States or any agency thereof); etc.

            The fact that Puerto Rico residents were exempted from paying federal income taxes directly to the federal government does not preclude the fact that it has been federal law that established such procedures and the obligation to pay at the local level.  In the case of federal taxes, it can be concluded that besides paying some federal taxes directly to the IRS (social security, unemployment, certain taxes on income, some corporate taxes, etc.), the local government is a federal institutional creation by reason that the local constitution is a federal law and all taxes paid within the jurisdiction of the territory of Puerto Rico can only be considered federal in nature, though it "looks" otherwise.
There is no conflict between Puerto Rico being an incorporated territory and being excluded from the payment of federal taxes, as it was no conflict either in Alaska.  In Binns v. U S, 194 U.S. 486, 492 (1904) the court said:
In reference to the power of Congress, reference may be had to Gibbons v. District of Columbia, 116 U.S. 404 , 29 L. ed. 680, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 427, in which it was held that 'it is within the constitutional power of Congress, acting as the local legislature of the District of Columbia, to tax different classes of property within the District at different rates;' and further, after referring to the case of Loughborough v. Blake, 5 Wheat. 317, 5 L. ed. 98, it was said (pp. 407, 408, L. ed. p. 681, Sup. Ct. Rep. p. 429):
'The power of Congress, legislating as a local legislature for the District, to levy taxes for District purposes only, in like manner as the legislature of a state may tax the people of a state for state purposes, was expressly admitted, and has never since been doubted. 5 Wheat. 318, 5 L. ed. 98; Welch v. Cook, 97 U.S. 541 , 24 L. ed. 1112; Mattingly v. District of Columbia, 97 U.S. 687 , 24 L. ed. 1098. In the exercise of this power Congress, like any state legislature unrestricted by constitutional provisions, may, at its discretion, wholly exempt certain classes of property from taxation, or may tax them at a lower rate than other property.'
In view of this decision it would not be open to doubt that, if the act had provided for a local treasurer to whom these local taxes should be paid, and directed that the proceeds be used solely in payment of the necessary expenses of the government of Alaska, its constitutionality would be clear;

            Furthermore, residents of Puerto Rico who work for the federal government must pay all federal taxes, and residents who have income derived from the states, or from other sources than income earned in Puerto Rico, are also liable to pay all federal taxes involved. In total, Puerto Rico residents and businesses paid nearly $5 billion in federal taxes in 2003. Taxation without representation?
            All Puerto Rican citizens that move to the states are liable to pay the full scope of federal taxes.   By locally disallowing the full payment of direct federal taxes, Congress also disallows in Puerto Rico the enjoyment of the full distribution of federal resources that are allowed to the Citizens of the several States, therefore compounding the problems that such lack of resources sharing represent in the maximization of fundamental rights of citizens of the United States in Puerto Rico. 
            This is a very delicate situation. For when Congress legislates to amend a federal program, as it did by reducing the time a citizen could receive federal assistance on certain federal programs, Puerto Rico was given the same treatment as any of the states. Yet, we do not receive the same treatment in the sharing of resources needed to face the situation, as other States do.  As it happened in Harris vs Rosario, supra.
            The net result should make the Court uncomfortable: our labor participation rate stands at around 46%, compared with 67% for the Union as a whole; our real unemployment rate, when compared to the States, jumps to a mind boggling 40%; almost 50% of our citizens are under the poverty threshold.

More on internal revenue laws: 
Sec. 734a. - Extension of industrial alcohol and internal revenue laws to Puerto Rico
Title III of the National Prohibition Act, as amended, and all provisions of the internal revenue laws relating to the enforcement thereof, are extended to and made applicable to Puerto Rico from and after August 27, 1935. ...

Extending the Laws of Customs and Collection Districts
            The following section is self explanatory. There are customhouses in every port of entry in the Island to collect duties and taxes on imports:
Sec. 739. - Duties on foreign imports; books and pamphlets in English language
The same tariffs, customs, and duties shall be levied, collected, and paid upon all articles imported into Puerto Rico from ports other than those of the United States which are required by law to be collected upon articles imported into the United States from foreign countries.

Establishing collection districts:
Sec. 740. - Duties and taxes to constitute fund for benefit of Puerto Rico; ports of entry
The duties and taxes collected in Puerto Rico in pursuance of the provisions of this Act, less the cost of collecting the same, and the gross amount of all collections of duties and taxes in the United States upon articles of merchandise coming from Puerto Rico, shall be paid into the treasury of Puerto Rico to be expended as required by law for the government and benefit thereof, and the Secretary of the Treasury shall designate the several ports and subports of entry in Puerto Rico and shall make such rules and regulations and appoint such agents as may be necessary to collect the duties and taxes authorized to be levied, collected, and paid in Puerto Rico by the provisions of this Act, etc.

           From a report by Department of Transportation, U.S. Coast Guard, Statement of Vice Admiral John E. Shkor, Commander, Coast Guard Atlantic Area, On The Drug Smuggling Problem in the Caribbean, before the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice Oversight Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, May 9, 2000, we quote a small sentence that says it all:  “Puerto Rico, a part of the U.S. Customs Zone,...”
            In the Glossary of the U.S. Bureau of Transportation Statistics, a distinction is made between Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgins Islands: 

                Puerto Rico is a customs district within the U.S. Customs territory, and its trade with foreign countries is included in U.S. import statistics. U.S. import statistics also include merchandise trade between the U.S. Virgin Islands and foreign countries even though the islands are not officially a part of the U.S. Customs territory.

Interstate Commerce
            Free commerce with the states, as if Puerto Rico were a state is covered in the following section:
Sec. 738. - Free interchange of merchandise with United States
All merchandise and articles coming into the United States from Puerto Rico and coming into Puerto Rico from the United States shall be entered at the several ports of entry free of duty and in no event shall any tariff duties be collected on said merchandise or articles

Extending the Laws of Navigation
§ 744. Coasting trade laws -
The coasting trade between Puerto Rico and the United States shall be regulated in accordance with the provisions of law applicable to such trade between any two great coasting districts of the United States.

            Puerto Rico falls under all transportation laws that are applicable, including the Jones Act of 1920.  In fact, in terms of the interstate relations between the geographical states themselves and with Puerto Rico, there is hardly any difference.  Thus, the irony is that while the territorial condition limits the application of the federal character of the U.S. Constitution to the citizens in Puerto Rico, the territory per se is and acts like a Federal State with the rest of the States!
On the District Court of Puerto Rico from Rassmussen Vs The United States (197 U.S. 596, 524) v. U.S. (Supra): 

In the course of the opinion it was declared (p. 352, L. ed. p. 186, Sup. Ct. Rep. p. 1119):
'Alaska is one of the territories of the United States. It was so designated in that order [referring to the order of this court assigning to the ninth circuit], and has always been so regarded. And the court established by the act of 1884 is the court of last resort within the limits of that territory. It is, therefore, in every substantial sense, the supreme court of that territory.'

            According to the web site of the U.S. Judiciary System, on September 12, 1966, 80 Stat. 764, the District Court of Puerto Rico became a Constitutional Court: “This act granted life tenure during good behavior to future appointments to the two judgeships for the District of Puerto Rico, thus placing the court in the same status as other U.S. district courts.”  Needless to say the District Court of Puerto Rico belongs to the First District Court in Boston.  In Balzac v. People Of Porto Rico, 258 U.S. 298, 312 (1922), the court used, as an argument of non-incorporation, the following statement:
The United States District Court is not a true United States court established under article 3 of the Constitution to administer the judicial power of the United States therein conveyed. It is created by virtue of the sovereign congressional faculty, granted under article 4, 3, of that instrument, of making all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory belonging to the United States. The resemblance of its jurisdiction to that of true United States courts, in offering an opportunity to nonresidents of resorting to a tribunal not subject to local influence, does not change its character as a mere territorial court.

            The District Court of Puerto Rico is now established under Article 3 of the U.S. Constitution.  Is it possible to have a Constitutional Court in an unincorporated territory?  No, according to Balzac.

Regarding Rev. Stat. 1891, in Dorr v. USA (195 U.S. 138, 143-144 (1904)) the Court wrote: 
                “The legislation upon the subject shows that not only has Congress hitherto refrained from incorporating the Philippines into the United States, but in the act of 1902, providing for temporary civil government ( 32 Stat. at L. 691, chap. 1369), there is express provision that 1891 of the Revised Statutes of 1878 shall not apply to the Philippine Islands. This is the section giving force and effect to the Constitution and laws of the United States, not locally inapplicable, within all the organized territories, and every [195 U.S. 138, 144] territory thereafter organized, as elsewhere within the United States.”

            The territory of Puerto Rico has never been exempted from this statute. Much to the contrary, a similar wording of the statute was explicitly applied in the Foraker Act of 1900 and in the Jones Act of 1917, today the Puerto Rico Federal Relations Act.
The Jones Act repeated the command that “the statutory laws of the United States not locally inapplicable * * * shall have the same force and effect in Porto Rico as in the United States.” 39 Stat. 954”, Emma Rodriguez, v. Puerto Rico Federal Affairs Administration, et al., United States of America, Intervenor, No. 05-1410,  in the Supreme Court of the United States (Appendix B).

VI.      Once The Provisions Of The Constitution of the United States are Extended,   They Cannot be Withdrawn.

            I have shown, conclusively, that Congress has extended the Constitution and the laws of the United States to the inhabitants in Puerto Rico.  This is a critical point that must be carefully addressed when considering independence as an option for Puerto Rico.  What happens when the provisions of the Constitution are extended to a territory?  Here is the answer in Downes v. Bidwell, 182 u.s. 244, 269-270 (1901):
                In Springville v. Thomas, 166 U.S. 707 , 41 L. ed. 1172, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 717, ...It was also intimated that Congress 'could not impart the power to change the constitutional rule,' which was obviously true with respect to Utah, since the organic act of that territory (9 Stat. at L. 458, chap. 51, 17) had expressly extended to it the Constitution and laws of the United States. As we have already held, that provision, once made, could not be withdrawn. If the Constitution could be withdrawn directly, it could be nullified indirectly by acts passed inconsistent with it. The Constitution would thus cease to exist as such, and become of no greater authority than an ordinary act of Congress. (Our emphasis).

            Mr. Justice Harlan, in a concurring opinion in Rassmussen v. The United States (197 U.S. 516, 529-530 (1905)), makes a more direct statement (or warning) on persons or institutions that could even think of withdrawing the Constitution once it is extended to a territory:
No tribunal or person can exercise authority involving life or liberty, in any territory of the United States, organized or unorganized, except in harmony with the Constitution.
                Congress cannot suspend the operation of the Constitution in any territory after it has come under the sovereign authority of the United States, nor by any affirmative enactment, or [197 U.S. 516, 530]   by mere nonaction, can Congress prevent the Constitution from being the supreme law for any peoples subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
                The power conferred upon Congress to make needful rules and regulations respecting the territories of the United States does not authorize Congress to make any rule or regulation inconsistent with the Constitution or violative of any right secured by that instrument.
                The proposition that a people subject to the full authority of the United States for purposes of government may, under any circumstances, or for any period of time, long or short, be governed as Congress pleases to ordain, without regard to the Constitution, is, in my judgment, inconsistent with the whole theory of our institutions.
                If the Constitution does not become the supreme law in a territory acquired by treaty, and whose inhabitants are under the dominion of the United States, until Congress, in some distinct form, shall have expressed its will to that effect, it would necessarily follow that, by positive enactment, or simply by nonaction, Congress, under the theory of 'incorporation,' and although a mere creature of the Constitution, could forever withhold from the inhabitants of such territory the benefit of the guaranties of life, liberty, and property as set forth in the Constitution. I cannot assent to any such doctrine. I cannot agree that the supremacy of the Constitution depends upon the will of Congress.

            The above statements clearly show why the extention of the privileges and immunities clause to the inhabitants of a territory produces its incorporation:  Such action results in the extension of the Constitution to the inhabitants, with the consequence of incorporating the territory.  Once extended, the Constitution cannot be withdrawn.
Independence would require the withdrawal of the Constitution.  Congress cannot do it; the people of Puerto Rico cannot do it either, because they lack the sovereignty to do so.  Thus, Puerto Rico would remain as a territory - which has been rejected by the courts, or would move to request admission as a State - which will happen as soon as the incorporation of Puerto Rico is officially recognized.
            Therefore, the most important provision in the Constitution of the United States of America, “the basis of the Union”, the privileges and immunities clause, and the rest of the Constitution except for the provisions within its federal character, has been extended to the U.S. Citizens in Puerto Rico and can “not be withdrawn.” It has been applied to Puerto Rico without hesitation or conditions by the U.S. Congress since 1947.  According to the court in Downes and Rassmussen (Supra), I repeat, it cannot be withdrawn!
VII.     A Sentence in the Task Force Report That Must be Deleted

            The following sentence is found in one of the paragraphs in the Report By The Task Force Report on the Political Status of Puerto Rico:
The Federal Government may relinquish United States sovereignty by granting independence or ceding the territory to another nation; or it may, as the Constitution provides, admit a territory as a State, thus making the Territory Clause inapplicable.

            This whole report contradicts the previous unfortunate sentence.  Puerto Rico has been expressly incorporated into the United States by the Congress.  Therefore, this sentence should be deleted.  The following statement in Downes v. Bidwell, 182 u.s. 244, 314 - 315 (1901) is related to the unfortunate sentence of the Report:

“Observe, again, the inconsistency of this argument. It considers, on the one hand, that so vital is the question of incorporation that no alien territory may be acquired by a cession without absolutely endowing the territory with incorporation and [182 U.S. 244, 315]   the inhabitants with resulting citizenship, because, under our system of government, the assumption that a territory and its inhabitants may be held by any other title than one incorporating is impossible to be thought of. And yet, to avoid the evil consequences which must follow from accepting this proposition, the argument is that all citizenship of the United States is precarious and fleeting, subject to be sold at any moment like any other property. That is to say, to protect a newly acquired people in their presumed rights, it is essential to degrade the whole body of American citizenship.

“The reasoning which has sometimes been indulged in by those who asserted that the Constitution was not at all operative in the territories is that, as they were acquired by purchase, the right to buy included the right to sell. This has been met by the proposition that if the country purchased and its inhabitants became incorporated into the United States, it came under the shelter of the Constitution, and no power existed to sell American citizens. In conformity to the principles which I have admitted it is impossible for me to say at one and the same time that territory is an integral part of the United States protected by the Constitution, and yet the safeguards, privileges, rights, and immunities which arise from this situation are so ephemeral in their character that by a mere act of sale they may be destroyed..” (My emphasis).

            The selling of property that belonged to the United States in its territories was first conceived with the Northwest territory to raise revenue to pay the costs of the War for Independence.  But it was born out of the fact that such territory was extensive and uninhabited.  The idea that the Congress could dispose of a territory inhabited by U.S. Citizens is simply unthinkable.  Though Mr. Kevin Marshall attempted to explain that such a statement was a mere technicality, the Task Force should have never, ever, made that statement part of the report.

CONCLUSION

            The Supreme Court of the United States is unanimous in its interpretation that the extension of the privileges and immunities clause of the Constitution of the United States to the inhabitants of a territory in effect produces the incorporation of that territory. 
            The net effect of incorporation is that the territory becomes an integral part of the geographical boundaries of the United States and cannot, from then on, be separated.  Indeed, the whole body of the U.S. Constitution is extended to the inhabitants of that territory, except for those provisions that relate to its federal character.
            More so, the needful rules and regulations of the territorial clause must yield to the Constitution and the inherent constraints imposed on it in dealing with the privileges and immunites of the inhabitants of the incorporated territory.  It is evident, from the readings of this statement, that the Constitution of the United States of America applies to the people of Puerto Rico by its own force in most instances, and not by the will of Congress.
            Notice must be taken that incorporation of a territory takes place through the incorporation of its inhabitants, not of the territory per se.  As such, those inhabitants receive the full impact of the U.S. Constitution, except for those provisions that deal specifically with the federal character of the Union.
            Here is an extraction of the Congressional Record of the Senate in 1947 (pages 10402-10403) pertaining to the intent and approval of Public Law 362 of 1947:
                Section 8 would make Puerto Rico subject to the same extent as one of the States to the comity clause of article IV of the Constitution of the United States, extending to citizens of each State the privileges and immunities of the citizens of the several States. Congress has not expressly extended the Constitution to Puerto Rico, as it did In the case of Alaska and Hawaii, and the committee considered it advisable to bring Puerto Rico expressly within the operation of the comity clause so as to leave no doubt that there may be no discrimination against citizens of the United States who are not residents of Puerto Rico.
                When Puerto Rico first came under the sovereignty of the United States in 1898, it was not thought advisable to make available extensive opportunities for self-government. Therefore the upper house of the legislature was not at first popularly elected; the governorship was to be filled by appointment of the President; the top judiciary was to be Presidentially appointed, too. The people of Puerto Rico were not at first made citizens of the United States. But they have been citizens since 1917. They have been electing their legislature since that date, and, under the authority granted by Congress in the Organic Act, they have been administering their affairs on their own initiative. Although the laws they have enacted have embraced a wide range of subject matter, Congress has never found it necessary to exercise its prerogative of annuling a law enacted by the Puerto Rican Legislature. The appointed Governors now choose the heads of the executive departments, their "cabinets" from among qualified Puerto Ricans. The people of Puerto Rico want a further opportunity to participate in their local government: they want the right to elect their Governor, and they want the Governor to have the right to select the members of their Supreme Court. They feel that since they have been authorized for so many years to enact their laws that it Is only just that they have some voice, directly or indirectly, in the selection of those who will execute and interpret those laws.  Puerto Ricans of all political faiths are united in their support of this bill.
                Its enactment would be entirely in keeping with American principles of self-government and democracy. It would enhance the prestige of the United States in the eyes of the world at a time when the rights of nonself- governing territories are a matter of world-wide interest. The United States has nothing to lose by the enactment of this bill. It would not alter the political or fiscal relationship between Puerto Rico and the United States in the slightest degree. It grants no new substantive powers to the Governor, the supreme court, or the legislature. Congress does not surrender any o1 its constitutional authority to legislate for Puerto Rico, or to review laws enacted by the Legislature of Puerto Rico. Although the justices of the supreme court will be appointed by the Governor, if H. R. 3309 is enacted, the decisions of that court will continue to be reviewed by the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, and by the United States Supreme Court upon certiorari. The bill makes no change
10402 JULY 26
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE
in the jurisdiction of the Federal District Court for Puerto Rico, which has the same jurisdiction as all other  Federal district courts. The judge of the Federal district court is appointed, and will continue to be appointed, by the President.
                In short, the enactment of H. R. 3309 would, by amending the Organic Act, make the structure of the Government of Puerto Rico reflect the advances in ability to govern themselves made by the people of Puerto Rico in the years since 1900, when control through appointment of Governor and supreme court was considered wise and necessary.

            Let us look at the Annotations of the Supreme Court regarding the Commity Clause:
                                               Main Index : Cases and Codes : U.S. Constitution : Article IV  
previous | Annotations p. 13 | next  

  Section 2. Interstate Comity
  Clause 1. State Citizenship: Privileges and Immunities

Origin and Purpose

                ''The primary purpose of this clause, like the clauses between which it is located. . .was to help fuse into one Nation a collection of independent sovereign States.'' 147 Precedent for this clause was a much wordier and a somewhat unclear 148 clause of the Articles of Confederation. ''The better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse among the people of the different States in this Union, the free inhabitants of each of these States, paupers, vagabonds and fugitives from justice excepted, shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several States; and the people of each State shall have free ingress and regress to and from any other State, and shall enjoy therein all the privileges of trade and commerce, subject to the same duties, impositions and restrictions as the inhabitants thereof respectively,. . .'' 149
                In the Convention, the present clause was presented, reported by the Committee on Detail, and adopted all in the language ultimately approved. 150 Little commentary was addressed to it, 151 and we may assume with Justice Miller that ''[t]here can be but little question that the purpose of both these provisions is the same, and that the privileges and immunities intended are the same in each. In the Articles of Confederation we have some of these specifically mentioned, and enough perhaps to give some general idea of the class of civil rights meant by the phrase.'' 152  
                At least four theories have been proffered regarding the purpose of this clause. First, the clause is a guaranty to the citizens of the different States of equal treatment by Congress; in other words, it is a species of equal protection clause binding on the National Government. Though it received some recognition in the Dred Scott case, 153 particularly in the opinion of Justice Catron, 154 this theory is today obsolete. 155
                Second, the clause is a guaranty to the citizens of each State of the natural and fundamental rights inherent in the citizenship of persons in a free society, the privileges and immunities of free citizens, which no State could deny to citizens of other States, without regard to the manner in which it treated its own citizens. This theory found some expression in a few state cases 156 and best accords with the natural law-natural rights language of Justice Washington in Corfield v. Coryell. 157  
                If it had been accepted by the Court, this theory might well have endowed the Supreme Court with a reviewing power over restrictive state legislation as broad as that which it later came to exercise under the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment, but it was firmly rejected by the Court. 158
                Third, the clause guarantees to the citizen of any State the rights which he enjoys as such even when he is sojourning in another State; that is, it enables him to carry with him his rights of State citizenship throughout the Union, unembarrassed by state lines. This theory, too, the Court rejected. 159
                Fourth, the clause merely forbids any State to discriminate against citizens of other States in favor of its own. It is this narrow interpretation that has become the settled one. ''It was undoubtedly the object of the clause in question to place the citizens of each State upon the same footing with citizens of other States, so far as the advantages resulting from citizenship in those States are concerned. It relieves them from the disabilities of alienage in other States; it inhibits discriminating legislation against them by other States; it gives them the right of free ingress into other States, and egress from them; it insures to them in other States the same freedom possessed by the citizens of those States in the acquisition and enjoyment of property, and in the pursuit of happiness; and it secures to them in other States the equal protection of their laws.'' 160  
                The recent cases emphasize that interpretation of the clause is tied to maintenance of the Union. ''Some distinctions between residents and nonresidents merely reflect the fact that this is a Nation composed of individual States, and are permitted; other distinctions are prohibited because they hinder the formation, the purpose, or the development of a single Union of those States. Only with respect to those 'privileges' and 'immunities' bearing upon the vitality of the Nation as a single entity must the State treat all citizens, resident and nonresident, equally.'' 161 While the clause ''was intended to create a national economic union,'' it as well protects noneconomic interests relating to the Union. 162  
                Hostile discrimination against all nonresidents infringes the clause, 163 but controversies between a State and its own citizens are not covered by the provision. 164 However, a state discrimination in favor of residents of one of its municipalities implicates the clause, even though the disfavored class consists of in-state as well as out-of-state inhabitants. 165 The clause should not be read so literally, the Court held, as to permit States to exclude out-of-state residents from benefits through the simple expediency of delegating authority to political subdivisions. 166  

How Implemented
                This clause is self-executory, that is to say, its enforcement is dependent upon the judicial process. It does not authorize penal legislation by Congress. Federal statutes prohibiting conspiracies to deprive any person of rights or privileges secured by state laws, 167 or punishing infractions by individuals of the right of citizens to reside peacefully in the several States and to have free ingress into and egress from such States, 168 have been held void.  (Our emphasis).

            Let us now look at some specific quotes from the Justices of the Supreme Court in various cases pertaining to the incorporation of different territories:

NORTHWEST TERRITORY

 

SCOTT v. SANDFORD, 60 U. S. 393 (1856)

Mr. Chief Justice TANEY delivered the opinion of the court.

            "James Madison, in the year 1819, speaking with reference to the prohibitory power claimed by Congress, then threatening the very existence of the Union, remarks of the language of the second clause of the third section of article fourth of the Constitution (The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory etc.) "that it cannot be well extended beyond a power over the territory as property, and the power to make provisions really needful or necessary for the government of settlers, until ripe for admission into the Union."
            "By the Act of April 20, 1836, 4 Stat. at Large 10, ...this part of the territory ceded by France, where Fort Snelling is, together with so much of the territory of the United States east of the Mississippi as now constitutes the State of Wisconsin, was brought under a Territorial Government under the name of the Territory of Wisconsin. By the eighteenth section of this act, it was enacted: "That the inhabitants of this Territory shall be entitled to and enjoy all and singular the rights, privileges, and advantages, granted and secured to the people of the Territory of the United States northwest of the river Ohio, by the articles of compact contained in the ordinance for the government of said Territory, passed on the 13th day of July, 1787, and shall be subject to all the restrictions and prohibitions in said articles of compact imposed upon the people of the said Territory."'

            Notice the crucial words: settlers, inhabitants.

DOWNES v. BIDWELL, 182 U.S. 244, 319-320 (1901)

Statement by Mr. Justice Brown:

            When the various treaties by which foreign territory has been acquired are considered in the light of the circumstances which surrounded them, it becomes to my mind clearly established that the treaty-making power was always deemed to be devoid of authority to incorporate territory into the United States without the assent, express or implied, of Congress, and that no question to the contrary has ever been even mooted. To appreciate this it is essential to bear in mind what the words 'United States' signified at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. When by the treaty of peace with Great Britain the independence of the United States was acknowledged, it is unquestioned that all the territory within the boundaries defined in that treaty, whatever may have been the disputes as to title, substantially belonged to particular states. The entire territory was part of the United States, and all the native white inhabitants were citizens of the United States and endowed with the rights and privileges arising from that relation. When, as has already been said, the Northwest Territory was ceded by Virginia, it was expressly stipulated that the rights of the inhabitants in this regard should be respected. The ordinance of 1787, providing for the government of the Northwest Territory, fulfilled [182 U.S. 244, 320]   this promise on behalf of the Confederation. Without undertaking to reproduce the text of the ordinance, it suffices to say that it contained a bill of rights, a promise of ultimate statehood, and it provided ( italics mine) that 'the said territory and the states which may be formed therein shall ever remain a part of this Confederacy of the United States of America, subject to the Articles of Confederation, and to such alterations therein as shall be constitutionally made, and to all the acts and ordinances of the United States in Congress assembled, conformably thereto.' It submitted the inhabitants to a liability for a tax to pay their proportional part of the public debt and the expenses of the government, to be assessed by the rule of apportionment which governed the states of the Confederation. It forbade slavery within the territory, and contained a stipulation that the provisions of the ordinance should ever remain unalterable unless by common consent.

***********
            Subsequently, the territory now embraced in the state of Tennessee was ceded to the United States by the state of North Carolina. In order to insure the rights of the native inhabitants, it was expressly stipulated that the inhabitants of the ceded territory should enjoy all the rights, privileges, benefits, and advantages set forth in the ordinance 'of the late Congress for the government of the western territory of the United [182 U.S. 244, 322]   States.'

************
            A government for the Mississippi territory was organized on April 7, 1798. 1 Stat. at L. 549, chap. 28. The land embraced was claimed by the state of Georgia, and her rights were saved by the act. The 6th section thereof provided as follows:
'Sec. 6. And be it further enacted, That from and after the establishment of the said government, the people of the aforesaid territory shall be entitled to and enjoy, all and singular, the rights, privileges, and advantages granted to the people of the territory of the United States northwest of the river Ohio, in and by the aforesaid ordinance of the thirteenth day of July, in the year one thousand seven hundred and eighty-seven, in as full and ample a manner as the same are possessed and enjoyed by the people of the said last-mentioned territory.'

TERRITORY OF LOUISIANA

DOWNES v. BIDWELL, 182 U.S. 244, 333 (1901)

Statement by Mr. Justice Brown:

            Pausing to analyze the practical construction which resulted from the acquisition of the vast domain covered by the Louisiana purchase, it indubitably results, first, that it was conceded by every shade of opinion that the government of the United States had the undoubted right to acquire, hold, and govern the territory as a possession, and that incorporation into the United States could under no circumstances arise solely from a treaty of cession, even although it contained provisions for the accomplishment of such result; second, it was strenuously denied by many eminent men that, in acquiring territory, citizenship could be conferred upon the inhabitants within the acquired territory; in other words, that the territory could be incorporated into the United States without an amendment to the Constitution; and, third, that the opinion which prevailed was that, although the treaty might stipulate for incorporation and citizenship under the Constitution, such agreements by the treaty-making power were but promises depending for their fulfilment on the furture action of Congress. In accordance with this view the territory acquired by the Louisiana purchase was governed as a mere dependency until, conformably to the suggestion of Mr. Jefferson, it was by the action of Congress incorporated as a territory into the United States, and the same rights were conferred in the same mode by which other territories had previously been incorporated, that is, by bestowing the privileges of citizenship and the rights and immunities which pertained to the Northwest Territory.

TERRITORY OF FLORIDA

DOWNES v. BIDWELL, 182 U.S. 244, 365-366 (1901)

Statement by Mr. Justice Brown:


MR. CHIEF JUSTICE FULLER, with whom concurred MR. JUSTICE HARLAN, MR. JUSTICE BREWER, and MR. JUSTICE PECKHAM, dissenting:


            In American Ins. Co. v. Canter  1 Pet. 541,- in which, by the way, the court did not accept the views of Mr. Justice Johnson in the circuit court or of Mr. Webster in argument,-Chief Justice Marshall said:
            'The course which the argument has taken will require that in deciding this question the court should take into view the relation in which Florida stands to the United States. The Constitution confers absolutely on the government of the Union the powers of making war and of making treaties; consequently that government possesses the power of acquiring territory, either by conquest or by treaty. The usage of the world is, if a nation be not entirely subdued, to consider the holding of conquered territory as a mere military occupation until its fate shall be determined at the treaty of peace. If it be ceded by the treaty, the acquisition is confirmed, and the ceded territory becomes a part of the nation to which it is annexed, either on the terms stipulated in the treaty of cession, or on such as its new master shall impose. [182 U.S. 244, 366]  
            On such transfer of territory, it has never been held that the relations of the inhabitants with each other undergo any change. Their relations with their former sovereign are dissolved, and new relations are created between them and the government which has acquired their territory. The same act which transfers their country transfers the allegiance of those who remain in it; and the law, which may be denominated political, is necessarily changed, although that which regulates the intercourse and general conduct of individuals remains in force until altered by the newly created power of the state. On the 2d of February, 1819, Spain ceded Florida to the United States. The 6th article of the treaty of cession contains the following provision:
'The inhabitants of the territories which his Catholic Majesty cedes to the United States by this treaty shall be incorporated in the Union of the United States as soon as may be consistent with the principles of the Federal Constitution, and admitted to the enjoyment of the privileges, rights, and immunities of the citizens of the United States.
            ' This treaty is the law of the land, and admits the inhabitants of Florida to the enjoyment of the privileges, rights, and immunities of the citizens of the United States. It is unnecessary to inquire whether this is not their condition independent of stipulation. They do not, however, participate in political power; they do not share in the government till Florida shall become a state. In the meantime, Florida continues to be a territory of the United States; governed by virtue of that clause in the Constitution which empowers Congress 'to make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States.' Perhaps the power of governing a territory belonging to the United States, which has not, by becoming a state, acquired the means of self-government, may result necessarily from the facts that it is not within the jurisdiction of any particular state, and is within the power and jurisdiction of the United States. The right to govern may be the inevitable consequence of the right to acquire territory.

DORR v. U S, 195 U.S. 138, 141-142 (1904)

Mr. Justice Day delivered the opinion of the court:

            'On the 2d of February, 1819, Spain ceded Florida to the United States. The 6th article of the treaty of cession contains the following provision: 'The inhabitants of the territories which His Catholic Majesty cedes the United States by this treaty shall be incorporated in the Union of the United States as soon as may be consistent with the principles of the Federal Constitution, and admitted to the enjoyment of the privileges, rights, and immunities of the citizens of the United States.' [8 Stat. at L. 256.] [195 U.S. 138, 142]   'This treaty is the law of the land, and admits the inhabitants of Florida to the enjoyment of the privileges, rights, and immunities of the citizens of the United States. It is unnecessary to inquire whether this is not their condition, independent of stipulation. They do not, however, participate in political power; they do not share in the government till Florida shall become a state. In the meantime Florida continues to be a territory of the United States, governed by virtue of that clause in the Constitution which empowers Congress 'to make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States."

TERRITORY OF HAWAII

DOWNES v. BIDWELL, 182 U.S. 244, 305 (1901)

Statement by Mr. Justice Brown:

            Thus, during the administration of President Pierce, in 1854, a draft of a treaty for the annexation of Hawaii was agreed upon, but, owing to the death of the King of the Hawaiian islands, was not executed. The 2d article of the proposed treaty provided as follows (Ex. Doc. Senate, 55th Congress, 2d sess., Report No. 681, Calendar No. 747, p. 91):
Article 2.
            The Kingdom of the Hawaiian Islands shall be incorporated into the American Union as a state, enjoying the same degree of sovereignty as other states, and admitted as such as soon as it can be done in consistency with the principles and requirements of the Federal Constitution, to all the rights, privileges, and immunities of a state as aforesaid, on a perfect equality with the other states of the Union.

TERRITORY OF ALASKA
Rassmussen Vs The United States (197 U.S. 516, 522-523 (1905)
Mr. Justice White delivered the opinion of the court:

            The treaty concerning Alaska, instead of exhibiting, as did the treaty respecting the Philippine Islands, the determination to reserve the question of the status of the acquired territory for ulterior action by Congress, manifested a contrary intention, since it is therein expressly declared, in article 3, that:
            'The inhabitants of the ceded territory . . . shall be admitted to the   enjoyment of all the rights, advantages, and immunities of citizens of the   United States; and shall be maintained and protected in the free enjoyment of   their liberty, property and religion.' [15 Stat. at L. 542.]

            This declaration, although somewhat changed in phraseology, is the equivalent, as pointed out in Downes v. Bidwell, of the formula employed from the beginning to express the purpose to incorporate acquired territory into the United States,-especially in the absence of other provisions showing an intention to the contrary. And it was doubtless this fact conjoined with the subsequent legislation of Congress which led to the following statement concerning Alaska made in the opinion of three, if not four, of the judges who concurred in the judgment of affirmance in Downes v. Bidwell (p. 335, L. ed. p. 1125, Sup. Ct. Rep. p. 805):
            'Without referring in detail to the acquisition from Russia of Alaska, it   suffices to say that that treaty also contained provisions for incorporation,  and was acted upon exactly in accord with the practical construction applied   in the case of the acquisition from Mexico, as just stated.' [197 U.S. 516,   523]  Presumably it was also a consideration of the character of the rights   conferred by the treaty by which Alaska was acquired, and the legislation of   Congress concerning that territory, to which we shall hereafter refer, which   caused Mr. Justice Gray, in his concurring opinion in Downes v. Bidwell, to   say (p. 345, L. ed. p. 1128, Sup. Ct. Rep. p. 809): 
            'The cases now before the court do not touch the authority of the United   States over the territories, in the strict and technical sense, being those   which lie within the United States, as bounded by the Atlantic and Pacific   Oceans, the Dominion of Canada, and the Republic of Mexico, and the   territories of Alaska and Hawaii, but they relate to territory in the broader   sense, acquired by the United States by war with a foreign state.'
            That Congress, shortly following the adoption of the treaty with Russia, clearly contemplated the incorporation of Alaska into the United States as a part thereof, we think plainly results from the act of July 20, 1868, concerning internal revenue taxation, chap. 186, 107 (15 Stat. at L. 167, U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 2277), and the act of July 27, 1868, chap. 273, extending the laws of the United States relating to customs, commerce, and navigation over Alaska, and establishing a collection district therein. 15 Stat. at L. 240. And this is fortified by subsequent action of Congress, which it is unnecessary to refer to.

***************
            Indeed, both before and since the decision in Downes v. Bidwell the status of Alaska as an incorporated territory was and has been recognized by the action and decisions of this court. By the 6th section of the judiciary act of March 3, 1891 (26 Stat. at L. 826, chap. 517, U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, pp. 549, 550), it was made the duty of this court to assign the several territories of the United States to particular circuits; and in execution of this law this court, by an order promulgated May 11, 1891, assigned the territory of Alaska to the ninth judicial circuit.

TERRITORY OF MEXICO

DOWNES v. BIDWELL, 182 U.S. 244, 334-335 (1901)

Statement by Mr. Justice Brown:

            The intensity of the political differences which existed at the outbreak of hostilities with Mexico and at the termination of the war with that country, and the subject around which such conflicts of opinion centered, probably explain why the treaty of peace with Mexico departed from the form adopted in the previous treaties concerning Florida and Louisiana. That treaty, instead of expressing a cession in the form previously adopted, whether intentionally or not I am unable, of course, to say, resorted to the expedient suggested by Attorney General Lincoln to President Jefferson, and accomplished the cession by changing the boundaries of the two countries; in other words, by bringing the acquired territory within the described boundaries of the United States. The treaty, besides, contained a stipulation for rights of citizenship; in other words, a provision equivalent in terms to those used in the previous treaties to which I have referred. The controversy which was then flagrant on the subject of slavery prevented the passage of [182 U.S. 244, 335]   bill giving California a territorial form of government, and California, after considerable delay, was therefore directly admitted into the Union as a state. After the ratification of the treaty various laws were enacted by Congress, which in effect treated the territory as acquired by the United States; and the executive officers of the government, conceiving that these acts were an implied or express ratification of the provisions of the treaty by Congress, acted upon the assumption that the provisions of the treaty were thus made operative, and hence incorporation had thus become efficacious.

***************
Mr. Chief Justice Fuller, with whom concurred Mr. Justice Harlan, Mr. Justice Brewer, and Mr. Justice Peckham, dissenting:

            In Cross v. Harrison, 16 How. 197, 14 L. ed. 903, it was held that by the ratification of the treaty with Mexico 'California became a part of the United States,' and that 'the right claimed to land foreign goods within the United States at any place out of a collection district, if allowed, would be a violation of that provision in the Constitution which enjoins that all duties, imposts, and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.'

            From the above quotes of different Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States of America, it is evident that the controlling and final decision to incorporate a territory by Congress rests exclusively in the extension of the privileges and immunities clause of the Constitution.to the inhabitants of the territory.  That such an event took place for the inhabitants and the territory of Puerto Rico with Public Law 362 of 1947 cannot be empiricaly questioned, for it was an express declaration by Congress. 
            And the actions by Congress respecting other applications of constitutional and federal law in Puerto Rico, leave no doubt that the theory of "implication" has also been fully met, according to this statement and according to Federal Judge Gustavo Gelpí.  That Puerto Rico has been expressly  AND impliedly incorportated to the Unied States of America is a fact that cannot be contested acording to the opinions of the Supreme Court and to acts of Congress.
            I can understand that the Task Force did not conduct an in-depth study of the incorporation of Puerto Rico.  Those persons composing the Task Force have a lot of work to do, just by the demands of their own jobs.  But I hope this statement will help them realize that there is more to this issue than they could have grasped in a short time.  And it is here served to them for their reconsideration and amendment of the Report by the Task Force on the Political Status of Puerto Rico.

Mario E. Porrata
October 23, 2009

APPENDIX E

Public law 600 of the 3 of July of 1950 of Puerto Rico

Public law 600, to 81er. Law of the Congress; providing for the Organization of a Constitutional Government by the town of Puerto Rico (ELA) (Law of the 3 of 1950 July, CAP. 446, 64 Stat. 314.) (1 L.P.R.A. Historical documents)
Inasmuch as,
the congress of the United States by means of a series of legislative actions has recognized, progressively, the right that the town of Puerto Rico has the own government; and
Inasmuch as,
under the terms of this congresional legislation, Puerto Rico has been obtaining a measurement every greater time of own government, Therefore,
Art. 1
It decreed by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States of America, reunited in Congress, That, recognizing widely the principle of the government by consent of the governed ones, is approved this Law, with the character of an agreement, of way, that the town of Puerto Rico can organize a government based on a constitution adopted by he himself.
Art. 2.
This Law will have to be put under for its acceptance or rejection the enabled voters of Puerto Rico by means of a referendum in all the island that will have to be celebrated in agreement with the laws of Puerto Rico. When being approved this Law by a majority of the voters who participate in this referendum, the Legislative Assembly of Puerto Rico is authorized to summon a constitutional convention that writes up a constitution for this Island of Puerto Rico. This constitution will have to create a republican government in form and will have to include a bill of rights.
Art. 3.
To the adopted being the constitution by the town of Puerto Rico, the President of the United States is authorized to send such constitution to the Congress of the United States, if it reaches the conclusion that such constitution is in agreement with the applicable dispositions of this Law and the Constitution of the United States.
The being approved by the Congress, the constitution will take effect in agreement with its terms.
Art. 4.
Except in the arranged thing in art. 5 of this Law, the titled statute “Law to provide a civil government to Puerto Rico, and other aims”, approved the 2 of March of 1917, according to has been amended, it continues in his force and vigor and hereby will be able in ahead mentioning itself like the Law of Federal Relations with Puerto Rico”.
Art. 5.
At the moment that the constitution of Puerto Rico between in vigor will be considered countermanded the following dispositions of this law of the 2 of March of 1917, according to it has been amended:
(1) art. 2, except the paragraph added by public law 362, of the Octogésimo Congress, First Session, approved the 5 of August of 1947.
(2) arts. 4, 12, 12a, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 18a, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 39, 40, 49, 49b, 50, 51, 52, 53, 56 and 57.
(3) the last paragraph of art. 37.
(4) art. 38, except the second paragraph of which It begins with the words “The Interstate Commerce Act” and finishes with the words “shall not apply to Puerto Rico”. *
Art. 6.
All law or part of inconsistente law with this Law is by this one countermanded.

APPENDIX F
PUERTO RICANS SERVING HONORABLY IN THE U.S. ARMED FORCES
SINCE 1899

            Although thousands of Puerto Ricans have served courageously in the armed forces since World War I, their presence and sacrifices have gone unnoticed in America. Many Americans are not familiar with the political and socio-economic relationship between the United States and Puerto Rico which makes Puerto Ricans U.S. citizens and requires them to serve in the U.S. armed forces during wartime drafts, even though they are not allowed to vote for President of the United States. Puerto Ricans resisting the draft were sent to U.S. penitentiaries. Thousands of other Puerto Ricans volunteered freely to help further the cause of democracy.
            This is the story of the 65th Infantry Regiment, the only Hispanic-segregated unit in U.S. military history. This unique regiment with a long and honored tradition has been the source of pride to many Puerto Ricans for more than 100 years. From its inception as a volunteer regiment in 1899 through its participation in World War I, World War II and the Korean Conflict, the men of 65th Infantry Regiment served with distinction. Mandated by Congress to be a segregated unit comprised primarily of Puerto Ricans with mostly continental officers, the 65th went on to demonstrate their military prowess in Korea and earned the respect and admiration of their fellow soldiers and the military authorities, including General Douglas MacArthur. During the Korean War, the 65th was sent to battle on the front lines and participated in nine major campaigns. In spite of the overwhelming number of Chinese forces and harsh climate conditions, the 65th proved themselves to be fierce warriors. They were nicknamed "The Borinqueneers" from the word Borinquen, the name the native Taino Indians called Puerto Rico. As U.S. soldiers, the Puerto Ricans were thrown into a foreign culture and language that many times responded with prejudice and discrimination. Some barely spoke English. Despite these impediments, many Puerto Ricans met the challenge and persevered. They served with distinction, made valuable contributions to the war effort, and earned well-deserved praise and commendation for their struggles and sacrifices. The 65th received a Presidential Unit Citation, a Meritorious Unit Commendation, and two Republic of Korea Unit Citations. Although still under research, to date, individual members of the unit have been awarded 9 Distinguished Service Crosses, 163 Silver Stars, 562 Bronze Stars and 1,014 Purple Hearts. For a small island, it also suffered tremendous casualties disproportionate to its population.
            As the regiment's stay lengthened in Korea, their military performance was affected by various factors. At a particularly difficult battle at Outpost Kelly, the 65th suffers more than 400 casualties, almost 10% of its total Korean War casualties. In October of 1952, there were numerous casualties again in a battle at Jackson Heights. This time, various troops of the 65th refused to continue attacking what they regarded as a suicide post. As a result, almost 100 men were court-martialed and the Puerto Ricans were incorporated into various American units. The 65th Infantry Regiment ceased to exist as an all-Puerto Rican unit, but continued as an integrated unit even participating at the famous Outpost Harry battle. Eventually, most of the sentences were remitted and many of the soldiers were reinstated. The alarming events that took place at Outpost Kelly and Jackson Heights have not been adequately explained to the public and are shrouded in mystery and controversy. This film will try to explain what really happened there.
            This is a story of men wrestling with the conflict between their personal and two distinct national identities, caught between their obligation to fulfill their military duties and trying to survive in the midst of the harshest combat conditions. The story of the forgotten men of the 65th will shed light on their remarkable contributions, accomplishments and struggles.
Source:  Internet: The Puerto Rican Soldier – History
APPENDIX G
Statement by Mario E. Porrata
Alliance For Full Statehood For Puerto Rico, Inc.
Rr9 Box 1390-129,  San Juan, P. R. 00926
Alianzaestadidad@aol.com
787-760-7588
Public Hearings On Bills HR900 and HR1320 On The Political Status Of Puerto Rico
March 22, 2007
TO THE HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE RESOURCES COMMITTEE:

INTRODUCTION
                        The word from Congress is that the solution of the political status of Puerto Rico is problematic because there is no consensus on the Island on the issue.  And Congress is right.
            But Congress must inquire on the reasons why nearly 4 million US Citizens, who have belonged to the Union of citizens of the United States of America for the last 90 years; who cherish their American Citizenship; who benefit from the economic impact of their economic integration to the Union; who offer the lives of their children for the defense of our nation; who settle with their families in the several States of the Union looking for a better quality of life and a better standard of living, have not reached a consensus to ask for the admission of the territory of Puerto Rico as a State of the Union.  This and other related inquiries is what Congress should, and must, address itself, because the enigma is just simply incomprehensible.
            Today, 90 years after becoming citizens of the United States, many Puerto Ricans do not feel they are members of the Union.  The 90th anniversary was hardly celebrated in the Island, in spite of an extraordinary effort on the part of the members of the Alliance for Full Statehood for Puerto Rico to have the government and the municipalities do so.  Puerto Ricans, in general, are simply ignorant on the history of the United States.  It is an easy bet that over 95 per cent of the population knows nothing about the US Constitution.  To many of us, going to the United States means going to New York.  Now Florida is catching up.
            We could go on and on.  But more important than signaling the ignorance that permeates the Puerto Rican society regarding the United States, a look at the roots of such condition will better prepare the Resources Committee to deal with this process successfully. 

THE PROBLEM
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
            Before any attempt is made to evaluate the validity and accuracy of a process to solve, once and for all, the political status of Puerto Rico, it is imperative to immerse ourselves in the issue of what really happened in the process of Public Law 600 of 1950 - 1952, how it was interpreted thereafter and the consequences of such interpretation.

US PUBLIC LAW 600 OF 1950
            In summary, Public Law 600 created a process by which the people of the territory of Puerto Rico would devise and adopt a Constitution for the governance of local affairs.  To achieve this purpose, upon adoption of the Constitution by the People of Puerto Rico Law 600 derogated all provisions in the Jones Act of 1917, which gave the Federal Government the authority to govern local affairs.  Most of those provisions, however, were inserted in the new Constitution.
            As part of the process, those provisions of the Jones Act of 1917 that dealt with the relationship of the People of Puerto Rico and the archipelago, with the Congress of the United States, remained intact; though the set of laws that emerged would change its name to the Puerto Rico Federal Relations Act.  In no instance Public Law 600 altered, or even addressed, the territorial condition of the archipelago of Puerto Rico.
            Therefore, the political status of Puerto Rico as a territory of the United States remained intact.  What was altered was its political ordainment by the adoption of a local Constitution that allowed the people of Puerto Rico a large degree of local self-government.  This new political ordainment had two important effects for the United States.  First, this was the first time Congress allowed a non-incorporated territory to govern its local matters without the intervention of the Federal Government.  Second, this new political ordainment allowed the Congress to comply with the requirements of Article 73 of the United Nations Charter (See Appendix B) to stop reporting on Puerto Rico given its new self-governing status.

LOCAL INTERPRETATION
            After approval of the Constitution in 1952, the UN Decolonization Committee was to receive a report in the year of 1953, on what was accomplished.  While preparing for the presentation to the UN Decolonization Committee, in a letter to the US Department of State to express his perception as to what had been accomplished, governor Luis Muñoz Marín, wrote in September 1, 1952:
             “Puerto Rico ceased to be a territory of the United States, and became a Commonwealth in free and voluntary association with it.”

            By the time this exchange started, however, the term  “Commonwealth” had already been locally substituted by the phrase  “Estado Libre Asociado,” (literal translation is Free Associated State), creating the notion that a “new political status” had been created and implemented in Puerto Rico. The hoax was already in motion throughout Puerto Rico when the Department of Interior tried to correct the situation.  Interim Secretary of Interior, Mr. Vernon D. Northdrop, reacting to Munoz’s letter, in a communication to Secretary of State Mr. Dean Acheson on the 9th of October 1952, wrote in its first paragraph and in no uncertain terms indicates:
            “...the people of Puerto Rico have attained a full measure of self-government, consistent with Puerto Rico’s status as a territory  of the United States.  ...Puerto Rico has not become an independent nation; neither has it become a State of the Union.  It remains a territory of the United States. The action of the Congress in authorizing and approving the constitution of the Commonwealth was taken under the constitutional power of the Congress to make needful rules and regulations respecting the territory of the United States...”

            It should be noticed that this exchange of letters took place a couple of months after the new Constitution had already been implemented.  It is plausible that Muñoz Marín may have implemented the Constitution under a wrong impression as to what had happened during the process of Public Law 600.  However, his future actions would demonstrate that after his exchange with the Department of Interior, he would not be willing to accept publicly what really happened.
            It is at this point, that the hoax against the People of Puerto Rico of a “new political status” began to take place.  Based on the ignorance of the people, Muñoz Marín proclaimed the “new political status” was founded upon “common citizenship,” “common defense”, “common markets,” and “common currency” with the United States, “attributes” that had been with the People of Puerto Rico since the beginning of the century!
            What is most remarkable about this assertion, however, is the standing given to US citizenship.  It was portrayed as a “carry on” item; it was disjointed from the US Constitution and as such the entire Puerto Rican population was also disjointed from it .

CONSEQUENCES OF THE INTERPRETATION
            By 1952 Muñoz Marín needed the backing of everyone for the approval of the new political ordainment.  Thus, the selling of the idea of a “new political status” required the projection that the “new status” could be directed towards either independence or statehood in the future. Therefore, he opted to project the idea that the “new political status” could accept followers from the independence and from the statehood camps, as a good strategy to obtain the backing of many people. It worked.
            But, as the popularity of the new “Estado Libre Asociado” (ELA) grew, its proponents realized that these other status options required a change to our own sovereignty, thus eliminating the territory, which was an essential component of the “Estado Libre Asociado.”  As a result, the option to “enhance Estado Libre Asociado” was born, as a substitute of the idea that the new status could be directed towards independence or statehood, and make it permanent.
            In 1959, seven years after the Interior Department made such a clear statement and Mrs. Bolton was so specifically clear at the presentation to the UN Committee, Governor Muñoz Marín addressed the Legislature in the following misleading terms: 
            “...the changes that may be proposed ...to the  present relationship...must be...within the spirit of the ‘new political status we have created.’” 
           
The insistence on “the new political status” is not difficult to understand.  Governor Muñoz Marín was a strong leader during those times of general ignorance. He was able to project to the uneducated People of Puerto Rico that the “Estado Libre Asociado” included both the territory and the People.  Thus, the hoax of “Estado Libre Asociado” was so impacting and successful on the image and leadership of Muñoz that he did not dare back out of it afterwards. 
            From this moment on, the People of Puerto Rico would be subject to a never-ending proposal of enhancement of Estado Libre Asociado that is still with us, even though it cannot happen because it is incompatible with the US Constitution.   The attempts have pretended to create a “new political status” parallel to the Federal Relations Act and called “Estado Libre Asociado mejorado.”

THE PROCESS OF 1967
            As the popularity of ELA increased, the seeds were planted to create the lack of consensus for the solution of the status problem.  The implementation of a federal program to grant federal tax exemption to US industries that would open factories in Puerto Rico, was  portrayed as a product of ELA.  The industrial expansion that followed served to augment ELA’s popularity. It was a revolution that created the slogan “Puerto Rico - The Shining Star of the Caribbean”.
            However, the leadership of the statehood and independence camps was not satisfied.  The attacks on the colonial situation were a menace to the “new political status” created by Muñoz.  Several attempts to correct the colonial situation were made and all failed, for one reason or another.  Thus came about the plebiscite of 1967.  The process pinched an “enhanced” ELA against statehood and independence.  The ELA proposal won with 60.41per cent of the vote, while statehood got 38.98% and independence .60%.  Of the four issues presented to the people about the Estado Libre Asociado, one is of concern to us.  It read:
            3) The authorization to develop the “Estado Libre Asociado” according to its fundamental principles up to maximum self government compatible with common defense, common market, common currency and the insoluble link of the United States Citizenship.
           
            No specific enhancements were listed.  It was a blank check.  The ad hoc committees in charge of evaluating the nature of the enhancements gave up on the project, mostly because of the content of the proposals, which were clearly unconstitutional.  And no enhancements took place.
            The high vote received by the statehood movement of almost 39% brought a big scare on both the followers of independence and of the “Estado Libre Asociado.” Such situation favoring statehood had to be stopped.  From then on two actions surfaced.  First, a smear campaign against statehood would use all kinds of tactics to stop the growing sentiment.  Second, independence advocates would escalate positions in government, in the Popular Democratic Party, in education and in the press, from which they would attempt to control most of the flow of anti US information.

DIRTY TACTICS TO MAINTAIN THE HOAX
Statehood Disinformation.  
            To maintain the hoax alive required the use of abundant disinformation on statehood, concurrent with a total lack of information regarding our real political ordainment under the Federal Relations Act and its impact on the local economy.           
            To demean statehood, the advocates of Estado Libre Asociado, preached the bankruptcy of the economy due to the payment of federal taxes including “federal property taxes,” the elimination and loss of the Spanish language and heritage, the loss of all our cultural traits and of our Puerto Rican identity, the massive return of all Puerto Ricans residing in the states to an already crowded Island, the conversion of Puerto Rico into a huge military base, and many other lies tending to slander the statehood option.            They have claimed commonwealth is a superior  “political system” because there are no federal income taxes, yet it can aspire to receive full parity in federal transfers!

Denigrate The American Personality. 
            Another tactic projected “Americans” as racists who would not accept Puerto Rico as a State due to racial discrimination.  “Americans” have been projected as assassins who like to indulge in all kinds of wars, killing people mercilessly and needlessly.  “Americans” have also been projected as gullible for money at all costs.  Federal tax breaks to stateside companies were merely a strategy to “exploit” our workforce for the benefit “of the United States,” not as a strategy to generate new jobs.

Denigrate The Puerto Rican Personality.
            They have promoted the notion that “Americans” are “whites with blue eyes” and statehood is out of reach for Puerto Rico because we are “different” and implicitly inferior.  This tactic is complicated because those professing this lie will not accept the reality that the great majority of Puerto Ricans are white, as confirmed so many times by the Census Bureau.  If they accept this empirical fact, their anti American argument would collapse.  So, they lie to keep the notion vivid.
            Incredibly this tactic borders on irrationality because it denigrates the black race by professing that the Congress will not accept a petition for statehood because we are black and blacks are inferior.  This is a shameful and horrendous tactic that has worked against statehood!
            This campaign is so unreal that during the debate of the Rep. Don Young status bill, commonwealth advocates contracted the services of certain writers and lobbyists to accuse our people of being unworthy of statehood!  And just recently the National Geographic Magazine published a report on Puerto Rico that has created an uproar due to its biased and distorted presentation of our reality:  The article focused on interviewing anti-American and pro independence advocates mostly - not exactly an impartial audience!
            This argument creates a vicious circle that has a tremendous negative impact on Puerto Ricans themselves because we have developed an inferiority complex. Such was one of the conclusions of a research made recently by the Popular Democratic Party.  What a shame!

We Are Too Poor. 
            To augment the denigration campaign against statehood, its enemies proclaim that we are too poor to become a state. This argument has a collateral damage, in that it projects the American personality as only interested in the money side of the equation - greedy indeed.  Reality is that it is statehood that brings a higher standard of living to the states that join the Union and not otherwise. 
            Another interesting angle is the accusation that federal transfers have created a sense of dependence by the people on the federal government, as if we were not US citizens! Reality is that the local economy does not serve well the entire community and those federal programs are of great assistance to the people.          
           
We Are Different.
            The anti-American media heavily promotes the entire smear campaign against statehood.  Their dominion of the media allows statehood opponents to publicly and continuously profess a distinction that is very effective:  “We and them.” 
            In spite of the fact that we are citizens of the United States, the media constantly projects Americans as third persons, clearly accentuating a difference between “them and us.”  This distinction is fundamental in establishing the notion that we live in a separate political environment from the Union.  But it is also fundamental in disallowing a decision to be fully integrated into the Union as a full State because it sets a barrier between what appear to be two separate societies.  The results are dramatic in that every person speaks in the same terms, including statehood advocates!  Our kids grow under this influence and express themselves equally.
            In summary, it can be asserted that commonwealth advocates have recurred to some very dishonest, sometimes unfair acts in order to maintain alive the hoax created back in 1952 and keep a full statehood petition out of reach.  They have downplayed the importance of American citizenship, have denigrated the full statehood option and the American citizen, have denigrated our own society in the most despicable manners, and successfully built the image that our economic progress under commonwealth is the product of a special “new political status” created in Puerto Rico and irrespective of our relationship with the several states of the United States of America.
            And the irony is that the people who favor Estado Libre Asociado are not aware that our real political ordainment, their real preference, which has created a de facto state of the Union and the consequent economic success, is based on federal laws: the Federal Relations Act and the Constitution of the United States.

CONSEQUENCES
These unfair, inhuman and immoral tactics result in the now famous and totally unfounded phrase “They do not want us,” which is constantly used to disallow a statehood petition.  Consequently, we do not act positively to end our status problem because the people are confused.  Instead, we tend to create status processes that have no teeth in them.

Dominate The Media.
            The notion that we live in a separate political system has maintained the independence movement artificially alive, though causing a lot of anxiety.  In spite of their small number of followers, independence advocates have been able to escalate important positions in the political party that promotes commonwealth.  Disguised as promoters of permanent union, these persons have reached the highest positions in government and are active in promoting activities that are appropriate to an independent nation.
            They have also reached high positions in the field of education, where they have infiltrated books that are used to promote an anti-American sentiment.  And they have controlled the entire press system so that any kind of anti-American expression will easily find its way to the airwaves or to the pages of the different papers.  This effort comes from a minuscule group in positions of power and they presently control more than 75% of all positions in radio and TV political programs.  In the press they also dominate the positions available.
            Just recently these anti-American racists ran a campaign against the federal program “No Child Left Behind,” accusing the federal government of implementing forced reclusion into the Armed Forces, a lie.  The media covered them extensively and got 50% of the parents to refuse to give information on their kids!

Diverted Loyalty. 
            The entire economic development Puerto Rico has experienced after 1952 has been attributed to the hoax of Estado Libre Asociado, totally disregarding the reality that our development has been the product of federal legislation applicable to Puerto Rico as if it were a state.  The consequent loyalty that such development should have produced towards the United States has been wrongly diverted to the Estado Libre Asociado - a non-existing fantasy.   Many Puerto Ricans, though firm defenders of their American citizenship, fail to be as loyal to the United States, because they have not been allowed to understand that their progress as a people is the result of federal legislation applicable to them as citizens of the United States.

Citizenship Undermined.       
            US citizenship, the heart of the sovereignty of the Union, is treated as merely “an attribute” of Estado Libre Asociado.  In Puerto Rico there are no US citizens, but Puerto Ricans with US citizenship.  The denigration of US citizenship is such that the proposal to “enhance commonwealth” pretends a political system outside the US Constitution with US citizenship, as If such citizenship is merely a “transportable instrument.” 

Political Instability. 
            The perception that we live in a “new political status” separate from the Union creates the fear that we can be separated from the Union by either internal forces, i.e., revolutions and coup de’ tats or by external forces, i.e., unilateral actions by Congress without due process of law.  The fear is widespread and constant.  Such appraisal inevitably leads to the conclusion that Puerto Ricans do not feel protected by the Constitution of the United States, which shows they feel their US citizenship is useless, except for traveling to the States.
            The insecurity that this condition creates in the Puerto Rican community is a tremendous drawback in its efforts to develop a sound economy and a balanced society.  The fear of loss of US nationality is so real, it provokes hysterical reactions every time independence advocates take to the streets to protest for anything.  Therefore, the spirit of the US Constitution, which purports to create safety in the populace, is violated on a daily basis in Puerto Rico.

Economic Instability. 
            An unstable political system can only create an unstable economic environment, a condition that is detrimental to our free enterprise system.   The Puerto Rican economy has two phases.  In the first phase, the original investments and expenditures are received every year from private investors, visitors and from the federal transfers.  In the second phase, the original receipts are circulated throughout the economy to produce the second part of the economic process. 
            The open nature of the local economy makes the second phase a critical one.  The more this phase multiplies, the larger the economic results.  Therefore, this second phase is shattered by the uncertainty created in our political ordainment and produces only a 180% multiplier effect.  This second phase is responsible for 45% of our Gross Product and the impact all this uncertainty bears on it creates lots of hardship in the citizens.

Opportunities Lost. 
            The perceptions that we are separate and unequal disallows full integration into the federal economic system and impedes our participation in the buy and sell activities that continuously occur among the states.  Imports/exports among the states amount to trillions of dollars, while our participation in that economic sector is meagerly low as compared to them.
            The lack of identity with the rest of the economy leaves us out of all the opportunities that abound in the several states, while pushing us to do international transactions with foreign markets that produce a negative balance of trade that amounts to billions of dollars annually.    In fact, during the last ten years our foreign balance of trade amounted to over $50 billion - in the red!

Nobody Likes Being Rejected. 
            In the minds of Puerto Ricans these arguments impede a statehood petition because no human being wants, neither likes, to experience the denigration of being rejected; much less in a petition that would become an international issue.  The result:  Inaction.
            When was the last time a President visited Puerto Rico?  42 years ago!

Massive Education is Needed. 
            The conditions for separate sovereignty do not exist.  Are the US citizens in Puerto Rico willing to renounce their American citizenship? NO!
            Proponents of free association falsely claim that such status can have dual Puerto Rican and US citizenship.   An education campaign would clearly establish the impact that separate sovereignty will have on the US citizenship Puerto Ricans enjoy.
            Are the people of Puerto Rico willing to disallow the applicability of federal legislation and their economic impact?  NO!  An education campaign should clearly expose the extent and the impact of the loss of US nationality on Puerto Ricans and their economy. 
            For the first time in their lives, Puerto Ricans should receive abundant information on the nature of their integration in the federal political and economic systems, and do away with the hoax of the economic progress attributed to Estado Libre Asociado.  The process proposed by the President’s Task Force would provide such an educational opportunity in two distinct stages!
            Are the people of Puerto Rico willing to lose the protection of the Constitution of the United States?  NO!             The people of Puerto Rico are hardly exposed to the contents of the US Constitution, even though they feel its need by intuition.  Citizens of the several states are continuously exposed to, and consequently educated in, the several provisions of the US Constitution.  Electing a president and a Congress, racial provisions, protection of state and national citizenship, etc.  We lack this type of discussion and the education here proposed should cover this subject.
            Our ignorance on this matter is so overwhelming that once in a while lawyers compare the local constitution with the federal constitution and express their opinion that the local is better than the federal!  This example clearly shows how much we know about the Union and its nature:  Nothing!!!!!
            Are the people of Puerto Rico willing to see the federal courts leave?  NO!  These courts are the most respected institutions in the island!
           
THE PROCESS OF 1989-91
            After the Popular Democratic Party lost the elections of 1968, Munoz Marín appointed Rafael Hernández Colón as the new party leader.  After winning and losing in several elections, Hernández Colón was elected governor of Puerto Rico in 1988.  During this tenure, Hernández Colón promoted a new status process with the consent of the presidents of the independence and the statehood parties.  He also received cooperation from Senator Bennet Johnston, Chairman of the Energy and Resources Committee of the US Senate.
            By this time Governor Hernández Colón had developed the belief that the enhancements the PDP leaders wanted for ELA could be obtained if Congress had the “political will” to do it.  He claimed that such enhancements were constitutional and could be had if he could convince the Congress to grant them.  It is at this point that the peak of lack of consensus acquired notoriety.  Hernández Colón convinced all of his party leaders on this position, and they are still of this opinion.
            Through my readings on this issue, I have finally figured out the nature of the position assumed by Hernández Colón.  For the benefit of the Committee, here it is.
            First and foremost, Hernández Colón believes that the United States is a Union of States; that the Constitution applies to the States.  The territories are not part of the Union.  The Constitution applies to the territories by the “political will” of the Congress, as allowed by the territorial clause.  Thus, Hernández Colón believes Congress can legislate for the territories in a manner different than the States. The Constitution grants Congress the “power” to make needful rules and regulations for the territories, irrespective of its Constitutional mandate, because they are not States.
            To put it in other words, Hernández Colón believes Congress must follow the Consitutional mandate with the States, but not necessarily with the territories.  So, in dealing with Puerto Rico, as a territory, all that is needed is the “political will” of Congress to enhance Estado Libre Asociado.
            This position, ladies and gentlemen of the Committee, is what moved Hernández Colón to participate in a hearing of the Energy and Resources Committee, and in which he presented 21 proposals for the enhancement of ELA to Senator Johnston.  Except for one, the Senator was forced to reject all others.  And from then on, the Popular Democratic Party skillfully moved to destroy that process through thorough and aggressive lobbying.
            For the benefit of all concerned, I wish to explain why Hernández Colón is wrong. The Constitution of the United States was constructed to apply to the Citizens of the United States, and not to the States.  The States delegated certain sovereign powers to the Union in order to make the Union of Citizens work.  The fundamental purpose of the Union was to protect “the privileges and immunities” of the citizens in the several states.
            When a new citizen baby is born, he/she becomes a US Citizens and the fundamental rights of the Constitution apply to him/her with the same force as to everybody else. If a citizen moves within the States, the Constitution follows him.  That was the way it was when the Colonies existed; that is what “Americans” wanted it to be after they became sovereign States.
            In the territories, the Constitution applies because its citizens are citizens of the United States.  Otherwise, the US Constitution would not apply, except in the sense that those territorial citizens are “nationals” under the protection of the United States.
            Here is where the beliefs of Hernández Colón err. The Constitution does not apply to the territory as such, but to its citizens, who are members of the Union of Citizens by virtue of their US Citizenship. The same principle applies to the States and their Citizens.  Hernández Colón cannot pretend that Congress gives the territory a special set of laws, while the citizens are covered by another set of laws in the Constitution.

THE PROCESS OF 1993
            The New Progressive Party won the elections in 1992 and in 1993 a referendum was implemented between the formulas of commonwealth, independence and statehood.  Each political party was asked to submit their own definitions, which were presented to the people.  The results were: Estado Libre Asociado 48.6%, Statehood 46.3% and independence 4.4%.
            In spite of having won the contest, the Popular Democratic Party did not take their proposal to Congress as was agreed during the process.  And once more their formula included enhancements to Estado Libre Asociado that were only timidly detailed.  Eventually the House of Representatives delivered the result to Congress, which paid no attention to the formula that won the contest.

THE PROCESS OF 1996 - 1998
            This process started in 1996 with a bill submitted by Rep. Don Young.  Initially, the bill would have included a decision between independence and statehood.  But pressure from different sources forced Rep Young to include Estado Libre Asociado as defined in the process of 1952.
            The leadership of the Popular Democratic Party objected. They met with Rep. George Miller to discuss the different enhancements they wanted to include in their formula.  Rep. Miller could not agree with such enhancements and the Popular Democratic Party decided to block the process with their powerful connections and lobbying in the Congress.  The House passed the bill by one vote.
But the Senate received the bill too late and could not move the legislation.  Instead, they produced a Sense of the Senate document in which they agreed to the right of the People of Puerto Rico to express themselves on their political status.
            Then the government of Puerto Rico implemented a referendum, which contained formulas similar to those of the Rep. Don Young bill.  The PDP objected.  They did not approve of the ELA of 1952.  They wanted their enhanced Estado Libre Asociado formula instead.  The local government did not agree.  In consequence, the PDP demanded and got the inclusion of the option “non of the above” in the ballot.
            The referendum was organized to take place just before Christmas.  Hurricane Georges had just hit the Island with fury back in September.  Many people did not agree neither with the date nor the time to hold such a contest.  The non of the above option won with 50.3% of the vote, followed by statehood 46.5, independence 2.5%, Free Association 0.3% and ELA as is 0.1%.
            The PDP skillfully used the hurricane and Christmas to, once more, affect the process to solve our status problem, because their enhanced Estado Libre Asociado formula wasn’t accepted.

THE OCTOBER 16, 1998 DEFINITION OF ELA
            In 1998, as president of the Popular Democratic Party Aníbal Acevedo Vilá took to the task of making a specific definition of the enhanced ELA formula.   He visited all PDP committees on the Island and finally produced the document on October 16, 1998.
            The document was brought before Rep. John Doolittle, who conducted hearings in Washington on the month of October in year 2000.  The conclusions can be summarized by a small section of the statement of one of the witnesses, Mr. Walter Dellinger, a professor of law at Duke University: 
            I come to testify today to take a look at 4751, and to see whether its provisions are consistent with the Constitution of the United States. Mr. Doolittle, over the 30 years I've been a professor and scholar of constitutional law, I've encountered a number of very difficult and uncertain questions of constitutional law. But this bill is not one of them.
            The propositions put forth by this bill, in my view, are so clearly unconstitutional that I do have concerns that the propositions put forward here would be misleading to the citizens and the people of Puerto Rico, and anyone else who is concerned about this difficult issue..

            Rep. John Doolittle made the following closing statement:
            I think we have closed this hearing with a very solid record that this status formula embodied in HR-4751 cannot be implemented as proposed by  the PDP.
            First, there is no political will in congress to give a territory its status based on permanent disenfranchisement of U.S. citizens. I think there is a bipartisan agreement on that much.
            I also do not think we want the U.S. to govern another nation within our nation, or to give a territory special constitutional rights that are unfair to U.S. citizens within the states. Even if we did wish to do all that, under the U.S. constitution the congress does not have the power to implement this status formula by statute or by treaty. We can talk about valid status  definitions and the overall status resolution process another day, but today I think we established that the core elements of this formula in its entirety and in the combination proposed by the PDP are unconstitutional.      
            I especially appreciate the testimony of Mr. Dellinger and Mr. Thornburgh in this regard and I invite them and all of our other witnesses to, and members of this committee to submit further supplementary testimony for the written record.

            Anibal Acevedo Vila, first as president of the PDP, then as Resident Commissioner and now as Governor of Puerto Rico has irresponsibly ignored the conclusions of these hearings and has come back with the same request for an enhancement of the territorial condition that cannot be through a US backed Constitutional Convention.  HR1230 is playing his game of deceit and trickery to the People of Puerto Rico and the Resources Committee should not allow for it to happen again.

FIRST CONCLUSION
            Not surprisingly,  in all of the attempts to enhance the status of the commonwealth, all of its proposals contained provisions that were always considered unconstitutional within the present relationship with the US, including in a Congressional hearing held in October 4, 2000 by Rep. John T. Doolittle.  All these failed efforts merely represented strategies to maintain the hoax of a “new political status called Estado Libre Asociado” alive.
            Reality was that no political status was created in 1952; the only change consisted of a new constitutional ordainment for the handling of local governmental matters in the territory of Puerto Rico.
            An important point must be stressed.  None of the processes presented in this statement were meant to finally end the territorial/colonial situation of Puerto Rico because all had the territory as an option.  Furthermore, the Congress did not sanction all efforts that required a vote from the people.  We can definitely state that all of them were mere popularity contests and nothing more.

THE REPORT BY THE PRESIDENTIAL TASK FORCE
            Thanks to the President’s Task Force On The Status of Puerto Rico, we are quickly approaching the final solution of the political status problem of Puerto Rico in a serious manner.
            The process recommended by the Task Force includes a very important suggestion I made to Mr. Rubén Barrales, Director of the Office of Intergovernmental Affairs of the White House, on a letter dated September 18, 2005.  I wrote:
            “I would avoid a process that outright recommends a decision between statehood and independence.  While this process seems to be logical, it is filled with many possible consequences that could undermine the results or void the process itself.
            The very first step of any process should call for a decision by the people that they are eager to       solve the problem.  They must really want to do this.  This mandate is a must as a prerequisite            to make a valid process.  If you do not get this decision up-front, all other steps will simply not    work, just as it has been proven with all previous efforts.”

            In very one of the three processes we have had, in which the people voted, and where there seemed to be a serious intention to solve the political status problem, none of them carried the weight of a public request to solve the issue.  The supposed winner of the three processes was always a different formula of the territorial condition, thus creating the vicious circle of making the cause of the problem of our political status, also the solution.
            It is here where an important point needs to be made.   The actual political ordainment, as was in 1952 and as has been ever since, was not present in the processes of 1967 and 1993.  In both processes the people were presented with “territorial status” formulas different from what was approved in 1952.  In both instances, these alternatives won by a majority vote, but were never implemented because they contained provisions that were simply in violation of the US Constitution and the Federal Relations Act of Puerto Rico.
            In the third process of 1998, the actual political ordainment, as approved back in 1952, became one of the options.  Yet, the advocates of the territorial condition were fiercely opposed because, once more, they wanted to have a different, though unconstitutional, formula. 
            The proposed formula was not allowed in the contest by the incumbent government.  Thus, the PDP opted for a monkey wrench approach and got the option of Non Of The Above in the ballot - making this option the winner.  The option backing the actual political ordainment, the territory as has been since 1952, received less than half of one per cent of the vote. 
            From this recount it is evident that the actual ordainment has never won a referendum since its inception in 1952.  It is also evident that the leaders of the PDP do not want what they have, and cannot have what they want because their different formulas have always been unconstitutional. The PDP leaders claim that the voters have always voted in favor of commonwealth and that is false.  In the last process they voted for nothing - Non Of The Above.  And in the two previous processes they voted for options that could only be had in separation from the United States, a condition that if the people had known before the vote, would have turned them down.
            Their maximum leader, Mr. Rafael Hernández Colón, has always insisted that there is nothing unconstitutional with their proposals and that it’s only a question of insisting with Congress that their formulas can “ fit” within the constitutional framework of the USA.  Yet, every analysis, every hearing, every other opinion on the subject concludes the opposite.
            The picture is now clear.  The leaders of the Popular Democratic Party (PDP) no longer want the political ordainment approved in 1952.  And what they want, what they have proposed as different alternatives to the present ordainment, are incompatible with our relationship with the United States - an important condition they want to preserve.  As long as those leaders continue to have the backing of a relatively large segment of the population through deceit and confusion, even if only as a plural majority, they shall insist on matching their unconstitutional wishes against real decolonization options and winning the events, thus maintaining the majority of the people of Puerto Rico in a colonial status that has lasted for 5 centuries and that they no longer want. 
            In order to solve the status stalemate, the territorial option must not be in a decisive ballot, because it is the option that creates the problem: Our colonial condition.  However, such an option is the preference of a significant segment of the community and they must be allowed to have what they want if that is the will of the majority of the people.  Therefore, a vote to determine the desire of the people of Puerto Rico to remain in the present political ordainment under the territorial clause of the Constitution, as reaffirmed back in 1952, is a mandatory democratic action which protects the decision taken by the people of Puerto Rico back then, even though it may help to extend a colonial option that is contrary to the character and the letter of the US Constitution.
            The Task Force clearly understood this sentiment in favor of the present ordainment and proposed an initial referendum where the People of Puerto Rico could remain a territory as long as a majority wanted so.  If the people opt for an end of the territory, a second referendum would place the option of separate sovereignty against the option of shared sovereignty for the people to choose.
            Now the leaders of the Popular Democratic Party are denouncing that the first referendum in the Task Force proposal discriminates against the territorial condition because the forces opposing the territory would band together against it and win...(!)  This is an explicit admittance that our actual territorial ordainment is clearly against the will of the majority!! 
            It is not ridiculous to hear the leadership of the PDP present such a vituperating argument; what is ridiculous is that some people are willing to buy it.  What is ridiculous is that the will of the majority of the people of Puerto Rico is being held captive by a minority.  They will do everything they can to disallow that majority expression, just as they have been doing for a long time.
            As long as the community of US citizens living in Puerto Rico wish to maintain a territorial ordainment, Congress has the moral obligation to abide by that decision because it was Congress itself who created it in the first place.  But once the people of Puerto Rico requests an end to the territorial condition, Congress has the obligation to provide the necessary mechanisms to solve the status problem.  This is exactly what the recommendations of the Task Force will accomplish.
            Let’s face the crude reality that the residents of Puerto Rico are full fledge US citizens, devoid of important constitutional rights on account of living in the US territory.
            The territorial condition IS the problem, and by no means can be part of the solution in a decisive referendum.  If the leaders of the Popular Democratic Party must have their ways outside the Constitution of the United States, they should, first, put an end to the territorial condition in the first stage of the process and, second, opt for separate sovereignty in the second stage of the process.
APPENDIX H
ABOUT THIS PLEBISCITE

            The structure of this plebiscite was suggested in the President's Task Force Report of 2005 with the objective to produce a clear and unbiased result on the solution of the political status problem of the People of Puerto Rico.           
            The Task Force realized that the results of previous plebiscites were confusing because the option chosen by the People would be operational under the territorial condition, in which case the status problem would not be solved.  So, the Task Force devised a two phased plebiscite which set out to determine, first and foremost, if the people really wanted to solve the problem;   if so, there had to be an explicit disapproval of the territorial condition, which was never discussed in previous plebiscites and was the cause of the problem.  Thus the question whether the People wished to maintain its territorial political status was essential to the process.
            The plebiscite just held was also structured as a two phased process, with a small variation from that recommended by the Task Force, in which two questions were asked:  In the first question, the People were asked if they wished to maintain their actual territorial status.  The People were asked to chose between two answers:  YES or NO.  This question had the intention of determining whether the People of Puerto Rico wished to solve their political status stalemate.  The results of previous plebiscites did not answer this question, though they implied that the answer was in the negative.  The Task Force wanted an explicit response.
            In the second question of this plebiscite, if the People wished to solve their political status situation with permanent formulas, they could express their preference for  either full statehood, full independence, or independence in association with the United States.
            The validity of the results of the second question depended on the results of the first question.  If the People opted to remain under the territorial condition, the second question became merely a survey, with no legal mandate.  However, if the People opted for an end to the territorial condition, then the results of the second question became a mandate to pursue and implement its results.
            The Task Force of 2005 was well aware that the People of Puerto Rico were manipulated to vote in such a way that the plebiscites previously held would be useless.   
            The results of the previous plebiscites did not produce a solution to the political status problem of Puerto Rico, because they were structured to be useless, by offering unconstitutional options, over which Congress could only act in an unconstitutional manner.  The Task Force Report of 2005 stated the following:
            Some have proposed a “New Commonwealth” status. Under this proposal, the island would become an autonomous, nonterritorial, non-State entity in permanent union with the United States under a covenant that could not be altered without the“mutual consent” of Puerto Rico and the federal Government.  The U.S. Constitution, however, does not allow for such an arrangement. For entities under the sovereignty of the United States,the only constitutional options are to be a State or territory. As the U.S. Supreme Court stated in 1879, “All territory within the jurisdiction of the United States not included in any State must necessarily be governed by or under the authority of Congress” (First Nat. Bank v. Yankton County, 101 U.S. 129, 133 (1879)).
            The structure of this plebiscite has been attacked by the enemies of a status solution as being pre-ordained to produce a result against, not the actual territorial status, but against the “Estado Libre Asociado mejorado” which they called “enhanced commonwealth.”  Those that so argue, however, have proven to be anti-statehood citizens who have held the status issue on hold until their desire for independence materializes.   
            There is a trick to this argument that has worked in the past and needs to be denounced.  The trick has consisted of offering an unconstitutional territorial condition under the disguise of an “enhanced commonwealth” that cannot be, (which did not solve the status problem), against full statehood and independence, (which did solve the status problem).   The offer takes the form of a “special form of statehood” under the territorial status that appeals to the voters and provokes a favorable vote in plebiscites.  The result is a vote for an unconstitutional political status that only leads to confusion, voids the plebiscite and creates a stalemate.  In the end, the plebiscite is rendered useless and the territorial status remains. ( In the plebiscite of 1993, the territorial status, under the disguise of “enhanced commonwealth,” or better - “Estado Libre Asociado,” won with a plural majority of 49% of the vote, against statehood and independence, where 51% of the voters opted for non-territorial options).
            Another issue involved partisan politics.  Previous plebiscites were conducted along political party lines, ignoring the real issues surrounding the political status.  The People voted according to the orders given by the political parties and their leaders, without any concern for the consequences.  Such attitude explains why many people voted for an unconstitutional option called “enhanced commonwealth.” 
            The Task Force of 2005 understood these situations and decided on a more decisive and conclusive process as explained before.  So, the truth is that this plebiscite was the product of the Task Force of 2005 and not of a local design.  The Task Force did not have a pre-ordained result in mind.  They really wanted to know the truth: Do they want to solve the status issue by abandoning the territorial condition?  If so, how? 
            The structure suggested by the Task Force of 2005 was adopted by the Puerto Rico legislature in this recent plebiscite of 2012 with little variation.  Everyone had the chance to vote in both questions; therefore, those that primarily wished to maintain the present territorial status, could still vote for a permanent solution in the second question, just in case their territorial preference lost in the first question.  It was an all inclusive and decisive process.
            The first question in this plebiscite allowed the People to discuss their real status under the territorial condition.  And a significant sector of the People finally understood their reality.              
            By inserting a reference to our real political status as a territory of the United States in the first question, the People began asking “what’s that”?  The People also asked “where is our Estado Libre Asociado”?  For the first time in the history of Puerto Rican plebiscites, the People started to discuss our real political status as a territory of the United States.            
            As the People of Puerto Rico have come to realize that such a “special form of statehood” does not exist, and that Puerto Rico has never ceased to be a territory of the United States, in the first question of the just conducted plebiscite  54% of the voters explicitly decided that, as American citizens, they did not want to maintain the territorial condition as their political status.    This decision is an explicit mandate from the People to reverse the principle of the “compact,” that is, a territorial status “with the consent of the People”, under the territorial clause of the US Constitution.  As citizens who cherish their US citizenship and are loyal to the Union, they want to be treated in the same fashion as any US citizen in the several States. 
            In the second question, the People of Puerto Rico were asked to express their preference for a permanent solution to the political status among permanent options: Statehood or Independence.  Statehood was presented as such.  But independence was presented in two variations:  Full independence, or independence under an option of free association.  This second variation of independence was wrongly called “Estado Libre Asociado Soberano,” which confused many people:  They thought this option meant a vote for their “enhanced commonwealth.” Had they been properly instructed that such a vote required independence first, the 33% vote this option got would have been drastically reduced because Puerto Ricans do not advocate independence.
            Sixty one percent (61%) of the voters opted for full statehood as it applies to all the Citizens of the several States.  As a comparison, in the plebiscite held during the elections of 1952, in which Congressional amendments to the local constitution were finally ratified, 54.19% of registered voters took part and 71.97% of the signed-up voters participated.  The final Constitution was completed with that vote.

            In this plebiscite there were no gimmicks or promises of unconstitutional nature.  An important sector of the population did not allow itself to be dragged into oblivion by lies and false claims like “the best of two worlds.”
            In this plebiscite the People finally rejected the offer of a “super status” under the American flag.  In other words, most of the People in Puerto Rico have learned, the hard way, that they cannot have a territory of the US with  “irrevocable US Citizenship,” yet with sovereign powers that properly belong in the Constitution of the United States and not in the Constitutions of the several States (like the power to conduct international relations on its own, in violation of the US Constitution). 
            That is how the People of Puerto Rico, natural born US Citizens, were induced to vote for in previous plebiscites.  Such unconstitutional options, under the territorial condition,  were presented to the People of Puerto Rico during the plebiscites of 1967 and 1993.  The political status formula was called “enhanced commonwealth” and was portrayed as better than full statehood or full independence.  It was also called “the best of two worlds” (meaning the best of independence and statehood, combined). 
            In those plebiscites the People were further assured that such an unconstitutional formula could be easily obtained by convincing Congress that all that was required was “congressional political will to grant it.”  The theory was that the US Constitution applies to the States, but that Congress has ample powers to do what it wants with the “Estado Libre Asociado,” including decisions outside the US Constitution.  Once those powers were granted, they claimed, the territorial condition would not change and all benefits from Congress would remain intact. 
            And in the plebiscite of 1998, followers of the Popular Democratic Party boycotted  the process because their “enhanced commonwealth” was not included.  (Many people also opposed the plebiscite because we had just been hit by hurricane Georges.  That's why voters of all colors opted for the None of the Above option).
            It can be readily seen that “the commonwealth,” as is known in Congress, did not actually win those plebiscites. In fact, the “commonwealth” as is known to Congress has never, ever won a plebiscite in Puerto Rico.  Rather, the option that won was a “special form of statehood” that cannot be had because it is unconstitutional.

            “If the quality of the process cannot be diminished, let’s diminish the results.”  That’s what followers of “Estado Libre Asociado”  are now claiming after losing the plebiscite.  So, a new statistical parameter is born:  the blank vote!
            Actually, and realistically, a blank vote does not exist;  a blank ballot does exist.  First of all, ballots are provided for every possible voter; and for every voter that does not sign-up to vote, a blank ballot will result.  Further, voters may sign up to vote and submit their ballots blank.  Still further, voters may invalidate their ballots by making illegal marks, in protest or by mere acts of foolishness.  To the best of my knowledge, such ballots have never been counted in Puerto Rico to determine the winners/losers of a particular electoral event, be it an election or a plebiscite.  The only votes that have ever been unconditionally counted have been those explicitly marked, irrespective of their quantities.
            In this plebiscite the first question was answered by 1,798,987 actual voters, which comprise 74.87% of registered voters (2,402,941).  They also account for 95.74% of signed-up voters (1,878,969).  54% of the actual voters (970,910) expressed their wish not to continue under the territorial condition.  Therefore, any future plebiscite could only include the two options left under the Constitution of the United States for a territory:  Statehood and Independence.
            Such “future plebiscite” took place in the second question, which was answered by 1,363,854 actual voters, which comprise 56.76% of registered voters.  They also account for 72.59% of signed-up voters.  61.16% of the actual voters (834,191) in the second question expressed their wish to make Puerto Rico a State of the Union.
            Statehood opponents have tried to dilute such an overwhelming vote in favor of statehood by demanding that blank ballots be counted as part of the universe of the actual voters in the first question.  There were 435,133 less votes in the second question than in the first. This would require that blank ballots be counted as votes, thus creating “ex post facto” a fourth option in the second question because the will of those voters cannot be assigned to any of the three original options.  Such action would be clearly unconstitutional, unfair and a clear contradiction to the principle of “one man, one vote.”

            The following is a letter I sent to the Congress at the beginning of the year 2013 regarding the results of the plbiscite of November 2012:

Friday, January 4, 2013

THE CONGRESS OF
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Washington, D.C.
Via Internet

Honorable Members Of Congress:
            As you are probably aware, the US Citizens of Puerto Rico held a plebiscite in the recent elections of November 6, 2012, in which they made two important decisions:  First, they expressed their wish not to continue under the actual territorial relationship.  Second, they expressed their wish to do so by means of full statehood.
            I am writing to you asking for assistance in implementing the results of that two-phased plebiscite and in which the US Citizens of Puerto Rico have expressed their desire to become the 51st State.  In short order, the United States Citizens of Puerto Rico have finally realized that there is no such thing as a “special form of statehood” for Puerto Rico, wrongly called “enhanced commonwealth.” Thus, they have voted for full statehood.    
            Contrary to previous plebiscites, in this instance the People were exposed to a true free determination process with clear questions that would produce non-confusing results. 

            The structure of this plebiscite was born in the President's Task Force Report of 2005 with the objective to produce a clear and unbiased result.
            The structure of this plebiscite was first suggested in the President's Task Force Report on the Political Status of Puerto Rico of 2005:
            The Task Force recognizes that the authority under the U.S. Constitution to establish a permanent non-territorial status for the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico rests with Congress. Although the current territorial status may continue so long as Congress desires, there are only two non-territorial options recognized by the U.S. Constitution that establish a permanent status between the people of Puerto Rico and the Government of the United States. • One is statehood. Under this option, Puerto Rico would become the 51st State with standing equal to the other 50 States. • The other is independence. Under this option, Puerto Rico would become a separate, independent sovereign nation. The democratic will of the Puerto Rican people is paramount for the future status of the territory. Ideally, the process should begin with an expression from the people of Puerto Rico on whether to maintain current territorial status or establish a permanent non-territorial status with regard to the United States. The popular will of the people should be ascertained in a way that provides clear guidance for future action by Congress. Therefore, the following are the recommendations of the Task Force: 1. The Task Force recommends that Congress within a year provide for a Federally sanctioned plebiscite in which the people of Puerto Rico will be asked to state whether they wish to remain a U.S. Territory subject to the will of Congress or to pursue a Constitutionally viable path toward a permanent non-territorial status with the United States. Congress should provide for this plebiscite to occur on a date certain. 2. The Task Force recommends that if the people of Puerto Rico elect to pursue a permanent non territorial status, Congress should provide for an additional plebiscite allowing the people of Puerto Rico to choose between one of the two permanent non-territorial options. Once the people have selected one of the two options, Congress is encouraged to begin a process of transition toward that option. 3. If the people elect to remain as a territory, the Task Force recommends, consistent with the 1992 memorandum of President Bush, that a plebiscite occur periodically, as long as that status continues, to keep Congress informed of the people’s wishes.  ( My emphasis).
           
            The Task Force realized that the results of previous plebiscites were confusing because the option chosen by the People did not offer a solution to the status issue.  The option chosen would be operational under the territorial condition, in which case the status problem would not be solved.  So, they devised a two phased plebiscite which set out to determine, first and foremost, if the people really wanted to solve the problem.   The Task Force realized that if the People of Puerto Rico really wanted to solve the status issue, there had to be an explicit disapproval of the territorial condition, which seemed to have been their preference in previous plebiscites and was the cause of the problem.  Thus the question whether the People wished to maintain its territorial political status was essential to the process.
            The actual plebiscite that was just held was also structured as a two phased process, with a small variation from that recommended by the Task Force, in which two questions were asked:  In the first question, the People were asked if they wished to maintain their actual territorial status.  The People were asked to chose between two answers:  YES or NO.  This question had the intention of determining whether the People of Puerto Rico wished to solve their political status stalemate.  The results of previous plebiscites did not answer this question, though they implied that the answer was NO;  i.e., they would rather remain under the territorial condition if the “enhanced commonwealth” option did not materialize.
            In the second question of this plebiscite, if the People wished to solve their political status situation with permanent formulas, they could express their preference for  either full statehood, full independence, or independence in association with the United States.
            The validity of the results of the second question depended on the results of the first question.  If the People opted to remain under the territorial condition, the second question became merely a survey, with no legal mandate.  However, if the People opted for an end to the territorial condition, then the results of the second question became a mandate to pursue and implement its results.
             The structure suggested by the Task Force of 2005 was adopted by the Puerto Rico legislature in this recent plebiscite of 2012 with little variation.  Everyone had the chance to vote in both questions; therefore, those that primarily wished to maintain the present territorial status, could still vote for a permanent solution in the second question, just in case their territorial preference lost in the first question.  It was an all inclusive and decisive process.

            The first question in this plebiscite allowed the People to discuss their real status under the territorial condition.  And a significant sector of the People finally understood their reality.              
            As the People of Puerto Rico have come to realize that such a “special form of statehood” does not exist, and that Puerto Rico has never ceased to be a territory of the United States, in the first question of the just conducted plebiscite  54% of the voters explicitly decided that, as American citizens, they did not want to maintain the territorial condition as its political status.  This is an explicit mandate from the People to reverse the principle of the “compact,” that is, with the consent of the People, under the territorial condition.  As citizens who cherish their US citizenship and are loyal to the Union, they want to be treated in the same fashion as any US citizen in the several States.  ( In the plebiscite of 1993, 51% of the voters opted for a non-territorial option, but did not explicitly reject the territorial status).
            In the second question, the People of Puerto Rico were asked to express their preference for a permanent solution to the political status among permanent options: Statehood or Independence.  Statehood was presented as such.  But independence was presented in two variations:  Full independence, or independence under an option of free association. 
            Sixty one percent (61%) of the voters opted for full statehood as it applies to all the Citizens of the several States. 

            In this plebiscite there were no gimmicks or promises of unconstitutional nature.  An important sector of the population did not allow itself to be dragged into oblivion by lies and false claims like “the best of two worlds.”
            In other words, most of the People in Puerto Rico have learned, the hard way, that they cannot have a territory of the US with  “irrevocable US Citizenship,” yet with sovereign powers that properly belong in the Constitution of the United States and not in the Constitutions of the several States (like the power to conduct international relations on its own, in violation of the US Constitution).  That is how the People of Puerto Rico, natural born US Citizens, were induced to vote for in previous plebiscites.
            Such unconstitutional options, under the territorial condition,  were presented to the People of Puerto Rico during the plebiscites of 1967 and 1993.  The political status formula was called “enhanced commonwealth” and was portrayed as better than full statehood or full independence.  It was also called “the best of both worlds”  (meaning the best of independence and statehood, combined). 
            The People were further assured that such an unconstitutional formula could be easily obtained by convincing Congress that all that was required was “congressional political will to grant it.”  But the territorial condition would not change and all benefits from Congress would remain intact.
            And in the plebiscite of 1998, followers of the Popular Democratic Party boycotted  the process because their “enhanced commonwealth” was not included.  (Many people also opposed the plebiscite because we had just been hit by hurricane Georges.  That's why voters of all colors opted for the None of the Above option).
            It can be readily seen that “the commonwealth,” as is known in Congress, did not actually win those plebiscites.  In fact, the “commonwealth” as is known to Congress has never, ever won a plebiscite in Puerto Rico.  Rather, the option that won was a “special form of statehood” that cannot be had because it is unconstitutional.

          An excellent process of free determination has been implemented in Puerto Rico and the results are there for Congress to act upon.                
            The word from Congress has been that the solution of the political status of Puerto Rico is problematic because there is no consensus on the Island on the issue.  And Congress has been right.  After all, when you include as options political status formulas that offer pies in the sky, and the people believe in those offers, the only result can be confusion.
            But this plebiscite has cleared the way to solve the problem.  The Task Force provided the decisive tool through the two phased plebiscite that answered fundamental questions of free determination:  If and How to solve the issue.
            Once the People had expressed their desire to end the territorial status, they had to decide under which permanent formula available under the US Constitution would they prefer to move to: Statehood or Independence.
            Such a process provided the necessary tools to lead to a solid solution of Puerto Rico's political status problem by providing a basis for a real discussion of the issues.  It was a perfect decisive process with clear results.
            Which is why I am asking from the Members of Congress to consider an opinion from the Congressional Research Service in their report “Analysis of HR 856” on the status process of Rep. Don Young in 1996:
            The only way to secure Constitutionally-protected citizenship  is to complete the process of Constitutional integration so that people born in  Puerto Rico also will be born in a State of the Union for purposes of the 14th  Amendment.
            Puerto Rico started the “process of Constitutional integration” a long time ago.  
Principally and specifically since 1947 when the US Constitution was extended to the People by means of US Public Law 362 of 1947.  And with this plebiscite, we have the firm intention to complete the process, as suggested by the CRS, with the help from Congress. 
            A typical admission process goes as follows:
            “Historically, Congress has applied the following general procedure when granting territories statehood:
*  The territory holds a referendum vote to determine the people's desire for or against statehood.
*  Should a majority vote to seek statehood, the territory petitions the U.S. Congress for statehood.
*  The territory, if it has not already done so, is required to adopt a form of government and constitution that are in compliance with the U.S. Constitution.
*  The U.S. Congress - both House and Senate - pass, by a simple majority vote, a joint resolution accepting the territory as a state.
*  The President of the United States signs the joint resolution and the territory is acknowledged as a U.S. State.”  Quote from the Internet.

We have already implemented the initial steps:
            *  The territory held a referendum in which 61% of the voters expressed their desire for statehood.
            *  The Legislature of Puerto Rico has submitted a Concurrent Resolution to Congress requesting admission of Puerto Rico as the next State of the Union.
    Both our form of government and constitution are in full compliance with the US Constitution.  After all, our actual Constitution is a Law of Congress acting as our Magna Carta.  However, we respectfully ask Congress to examine our present Constitution to determine if any cosmetic changes are required in recognition of the sovereignty of the State;  also, make the necessary amendments for that purpose and re-submit to the People of Puerto Rico for approval.  We also ask Congress to produce the necessary Enabling Act and submit it with the amended Constitution for approval.
            Should there be a need to negotiate with the People of Puerto Rico anything related to its final admission, a Commission should be created for that purpose and elected by the direct vote of the People.  Our elected officials do not have such authorization from the People; neither were they elected for that purpose.

            We even went beyond the above process by explicitly voting against maintaining the territorial condition, which is our present political status under the US Constitution.       
            Thus, I urgently request from you, Members of Congress, through your Resources Committees, to take the necessary steps to admit Puerto Rico as the next State of the Union.  The process was started a long time ago and what remains to be done is very simple:  Amend the local Constitution, prepare an Enabling Act for whatever is left, have them approved by the People of Puerto Rico and admit the new State.  We should have done this a long time ago.

Sincerely yours,

Mario E. Porrata
APPENDIX I

"GOBIERNO DE PUERTO RICO

16ta. Asamblea Legislativa
5ta. Sesión Extraordinaria

SENADO DE PUERTO RICO

R. Conc. del S. 67

10 de diciembre de 2012

Presentada por el señor Rivera Schatz; la señora Nolasco Santiago; el señor Seilhamer Rodríguez, la señora Arce Ferrer; el señor Ríos Santiago; la señora Padilla Alvelo; el señor Berdiel Rivera; la señora Burgos Andújar; el señor Díaz Hernández; la señora Fernández Rodríguez; los señores González Velázquez, Iglesias Suárez, Martínez Santiago, Muñiz Cortés; las señoras Peña Ramírez, Raschke Martínez; el señor Rodríguez Martínez; las señoras Romero Donnelly, Santiago González, Soto Villanueva; el señor Torres Torres; y la señora Vázquez Nieves.

Referida a la Comisión de Reglas y Calendario

“CONCURRENT RESOLUTION
To urge the President and the Congress of the United States to act on the claim of the people of Puerto Rico, as freely and democratically expressed in the plebiscite held on November 6, 2012, to end, once and for all, its current form of territorial status and to begin the process to admit Puerto Rico to the Union as a State.
STATEMENT OF MOTIVES
On November 6, 2012, the people of Puerto Rico made history by requesting, for the first time ever, the conclusion of the island’s current territorial status. Almost 78% of registered voters participated in a plebiscite held to resolve Puerto Rico’s status, and a clear majority (54%) disagreed with Puerto Rico maintaining its present territorial status. Furthermore, among the possible alternatives, statehood received a super majority of the votes (61%), an unequivocal petition by the U.S. citizens of Puerto Rico to enjoy the same rights, benefits and obligations as the citizens of the States of the Union, including the right to full representation in Congress and participation in presidential elections. As the representatives of these citizens, this Legislative Assembly issues this petition to the President and the Congress of the United States to grant the request for legislation to end the territorial status and to begin the transition to statehood.
Puerto Rico is a territory of the United States by virtue of the Treaty of Paris, signed by the United States and Spain, at the end of the Spanish-American War. Individuals born in the island have been granted U.S. citizenship since 1917. The territory has been granted the exercise of authority over insular matters similar to the authority possessed by the States but our people are only represented in their national government by a sole resident commissioner who has been granted a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives with a vote only in committees of the House. The U.S. citizens of Puerto Rico are not represented in the U.S. Senate and are unable to vote in presidential elections. In our current situation, Puerto Rico does not have equal voting representation (or any voting representation) in the government that makes and implements its national laws: an essential requirement for democracy according to the most basic American values and international law. That is, in addition, Puerto Rico’s territory status enables its U.S. citizens to be discriminated against in Federal programs.
According to the 2010 U.S. Census, more than 3.7 million U.S. citizens live in Puerto Rico and there are now some 4.7 million citizens of Puerto Rican origin living in the States and the District of Columbia. Puerto Ricans have historically made major contributions to American society in such aspects as business, academics, culture, sports, public service, national defense and other fields of endeavor, as well as fought valiantly in every U.S. war since World War I, at a level of participation well beyond the national average.
Puerto Ricans have always wanted a status that is democratic at all levels, consistent with the United States commitment to democracy and self-determination and international law. Plebiscites were held in 1967, 1993 and 1998. All of these plebiscites sought to change the current government arrangement, but none of the possible alternatives to the present territorial status obtained a majority vote. These plebiscites generated confusion in terms of the proposals for a “New Commonwealth” that were different than the current arrangement but were not possible according to the executive and legislative branches of the federal government. Over the years, many Presidents as well as the Congress of the United States have also acted to resolve the issue. In 1979, both Houses of Congress passed resolutions committing to support Puerto Rican self-determination. In 1990 and 1998, the U.S. House of Representatives passed bipartisan bills to establish a process for a choice among viable status options and its implementation. In 1998, the U.S. Senate passed a resolution committing to respond to a Puerto Rican referendum choice. In 2000, the President and Congress enacted legislation providing for a plebiscite on Puerto Rico status but it was not implemented.
As recently as 2010, the U.S. House passed a bill for a plebiscite among Puerto Rico’s status options: statehood; independence; nationhood in an association with the U.S. that either nation could end —free association— and continuing with the current status under which Puerto Rico is subject to congressional governing authority pursuant to the Territorial Clause of the U.S. Constitution until the island by majority vote seek one of three possible non-territorial alternatives. The administrations of the last four presidents have reported on the possible status options for Puerto Rico.
The most recent report of the President’s Task Force on Puerto Rico’s Status concluded that “it is time for Puerto Rico to take the next step in the history of its status…immediate and true forward movement on the issue…would greatly benefit the people…the time to act is now.” The Task Force also stated that it would be “best…for the people [of Puerto Rico]…to speak first, with swift congressional action vindicating their will to follow.”
The 2012 plebiscite was guided by the Task Force report. After consultations with representatives of all of Puerto Rico’s political parties, the Governor proposed and the Legislative Assembly enacted Act 283 – 2012 for a plebiscite to be held simultaneously with the 2012 general elections, on November 6.
The plebiscite asked Puerto Rico’s voters if they wanted the current territorial status (also known as “Commonwealth” after the name of Puerto Rico’s insular government) to continue and their preference among the three possible non-territorial alternatives recognized by the Task Force, the U.S. Congress, and international law: Puerto Rico becoming a State of the United States, becoming an independent nation; or becoming a nation in an association with the United States that either nation can end (Sovereign Free Associated State).
The three options were defined in the ballot as follows:
Statehood
“Puerto Rico should be admitted as a state of the United States of America so that all United States citizens residing in Puerto Rico may have rights, benefits, and responsibilities equal to those enjoyed by all other states of the Union, and be entitled to full representation in Congress and to participate in the Presidential elections, the United States Congress would be required to pass any necessary legislation to begin transition into Statehood.”
Independence
“Puerto Rico should become a sovereign nation, fully independent from the United States and the United States Congress would be required to pass any necessary legislation to begin the transition into independent nation of Puerto Rico.”
Free Associated Sovereign State
“Puerto Rico should adopt a status outside of the Territorial Clause of the Constitution of the United States that recognizes the sovereignty of the People of Puerto Rico. The Free Associated Sovereign State would be based on a free voluntary political association, the specific terms of which shall be agreed upon between the United States and Puerto Rico as sovereign nations. Such agreement would provide the scope of the jurisdictional powers that the People of Puerto Rico agree to confer to the United States and retain all other jurisdictional powers and authorities.”
As stated above, the results of the plebiscite could not be clearer. Almost 78% of registered voters went to the polls, the biggest participation in any of the status plebiscite held on the island, and even greater than the participation to ratify the Commonwealth Constitution on 1952. In results unanimously accepted by the State Elections Commission of Puerto Rico, which has representation from all of the territory’s political parties, 54% (958,915 votes) rejected the current territorial status and only 46% (816,978 votes) supported it. In addition, 61.11% (824,195 votes) were cast for statehood, 33.34% (449,679 votes) for Puerto Rico becoming a Sovereign Free Associated State, and 5.55% (74,812 votes) for independence. The rejection by the People of Puerto Rico of the islands’ current territory status was so overwhelming that it got more votes than any candidate in the general elections, including the newly Governor-Elect.
Both of the major U.S. national political parties included in their 2012 election platforms their support for the final resolution of Puerto Rico’s status. The Democrats stated that “[i]f the process [referring to the plebiscite] produces a clear result, Congress should act on it quickly with the President’s support”. The Republicans, for their part, made a similar commitment, stating their “support [for] the right of the United States citizens of Puerto Rico to be admitted to the Union as a fully sovereign state if they freely determine so.”
In free and democratic votes called by their elected representatives, the people of Puerto Rico have, for the first time and by substantial majorities, voted for the current territory status to be replaced by one of the non-territorial alternatives identified as possible by the Government of the United States: admission as a State into the Union on an equal footing with the other States. Their vote, which constitutes a valid exercise of self- determination, represents their will to enjoy the same rights, benefits, and responsibilities enjoyed by U.S. citizens residing in the States of the United States, including voting representation in Congress and voting representation in the election of the president and the vice-president of the United States.
The United States of America, as the Leader of the “Free World” and the international community’s Champion of democracy and self-determination, must not ignore the legitimate expression of the U.S. citizens of Puerto Rico to petition the government for redress of their grievances pursuant to the First Amendment of the United States Constitution as well to exercise their right to self-determination. Specifically, the people of Puerto Rico, by a direct vote, have petitioned that the Federal government redress the grievance that consists of maintaining Puerto Rico subject to laws, treaties and taxes that are legislated by a Congress in which it is devoid of equal and voting representation, and signed into law by a President for whom these same American citizens cannot vote, due only to the fact of residence in the territory of Puerto Rico. In sum, the people of Puerto Rico have decisively rejected the continuation of the territory status that has heretofore permitted said grievance.
The history of the United States is one of progressive recognition of the equal rights of previously marginalized groups of American citizens. In this regard, our fellow citizens of Hispanic origin in the States will be especially attentive to the response of the Federal Government and the national political parties to the petition for equality of the people of Puerto Rico.
The demographic reality of the United States, evidenced by the 2010 Census, is that Hispanics are the largest and fastest-growing minority group in the Nation. The growing influence of Hispanics in America’s political processes is especially notable in States such as Colorado, Florida, New York, Illinois, Nevada, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. With the people of Puerto Rico having exercised their right to self-determination in the quintessential “American way” –that is to say, at the ballot box– the American people as a whole and Latinos in particular, are sure to be increasingly concerned about the way in which the President and Congress respond to the petition for equality of the U.S. citizens of Puerto Rico. The President and Congress’ response to such petition will show people of Hispanic origin throughout the Nation whether the statements of inclusion and empowerment of the national political parties are rhetoric or reality.
Similarly, the international community will also judge the commitment of the United States to its stated principle of democracy and self-determination by how it responds to the petition of the people of Puerto Rico for equality in their Nation. In redressing the grievances of its citizens in Puerto Rico, the United States has an opportunity to demonstrate to the world the authenticity of its long-standing policy in support of the right of people everywhere to choose their form of government, this, in the context of vigorous, ongoing American leadership on behalf of self-determination and democracy in Iraq, Afghanistan, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Libya, Egypt, Tunisia, Syria and other nations.
The response of the President and the Congress of the United States to the petition of the people of Puerto Rico has also implications for the Nation’s compliance with international obligations. Specifically, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, adopted by the United Nations on December 19, 1966, declares in Article 1.1:“All people have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.”
Article 25 further declares:
Every citizen shall have the right and the opportunity… without unreasonable restrictions: (a) To take part in the conduct of public affairs, directly or through freely chosen representatives; (b) To vote and to be elected at genuine periodic elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret ballot, guaranteeing the free expression of the will of the electors.
On June 8, 1992, the United States ratified the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, whose Article 1.3, further requires its signatories to “promote the realization of the right of self-determination” and whose Article 2.2 stipulates that:
Where not already provided for by existing legislative or other measures, each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to take the necessary steps, in accordance with its constitutional processes and with the provisions of the present Covenant, to adopt such laws or other measures as may be necessary to give effect to the rights recognized in the present Covenant.
It is incumbent upon Congress and the President to recognize that the territory status to which Puerto Rico and its citizens have been subjugated is no longer acceptable. Specifically, in view of the results of the plebiscite, the time has come for the President and Congress to begin a process for Puerto Rico’s admission as a State of the Union, so that the U.S. citizens who reside in Puerto Rico may enjoy the same rights, benefits and obligations as the citizens of the other States, including the right to voting and equal representation in Congress and voting for the president and the vice president.
The President and Congress, therefore, have a political and moral obligation to enact all necessary legislation to respect the freely and democratically expressed will of the People of Puerto Rico. This requires replacing the current territorial status, commonly known as “Commonwealth”, under which Puerto Rico has no votes in its national government and can be – and is -- treated unequally in some important Federal laws, with the equality of statehood, which would give the U.S. citizens of Puerto Rico voting representation – and equal representation – in their national government and equal benefits and responsibilities in national laws.
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF PUERTO RICO:
Section 1.- The President and the Congress of the United States are hereby urged to act on the claim of the people of Puerto Rico, as freely and democratically expressed in the plebiscite held on November 6, 2012, to end, once and for all, its current form of territorial status and to begin the process to admit Puerto Rico to the Union as a State, so that the U.S. citizens who reside in Puerto Rico may enjoy the same rights, benefits, and responsibilities as the citizens of the States of the Union, including the right to vote and to equal representation in Congress and vote in presidential elections.
Section 2.– A copy of this Concurrent Resolution shall be delivered to the President, the Vice President, and the Secretary of State of the United States, all Members of the 112th Congress of the United States, as well as Members-Elect of the 113th Congress of the United States, along with pertinent governmental and non-governmental organizations, human rights organizations and media outlets, among others, at the local, national and international levels.
Section 3.- This Concurrent Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its approval.”
Sección 4.- Esta Resolución Concurrente comenzará a regir inmediatamente después de su aprobación. Don Mario, se que ya debe de tenerla, pero se la incluyo: la revolución 67, de Ahora en Adelante conocida como PETICIÓN DE LA ESTADIDAD PARA PUERTO RICO"
APPENDIX J

H.R.2000 -- Puerto Rico Status Resolution Act (Introduced in House - IH)

HR 2000 IH
113th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 2000
To set forth the process for Puerto Rico to be admitted as a State of the Union.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

May 15, 2013

Mr. PIERLUISI (for himself, Mr. HOYER, Mr. YOUNG of Alaska, Mr. SERRANO, Mr. KING of New York, Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California, Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN, Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Mr. RANGEL, Mr. WAXMAN, Ms. KAPTUR, Mr. ENGEL, Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA, Ms. NORTON, Ms. BROWN of Florida, Mr. MICA, Mr. HASTINGS of Florida, Mr. FATTAH, Mr. KIND, Mr. CROWLEY, Mr. DIAZ-BALART, Mr. GRIJALVA, Ms. BORDALLO, Mr. ELLISON, Ms. CASTOR of Florida, Ms. FUDGE, Mr. SCHOCK, Mr. SABLAN, Mr. DEUTCH, Mr. POLIS, Mr. GRAYSON, Ms. WILSON of Florida, Mr. GARCIA, and Ms. SHEA-PORTER) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources

A BILL
To set forth the process for Puerto Rico to be admitted as a State of the Union.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Puerto Rico Status Resolution Act'.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.

(a) Findings- Congress finds the following:
(1) In 1898, Puerto Rico became a United States territory and persons born in Puerto Rico have been granted United States citizenship by law since March 2, 1917.
(2) Puerto Rico has been granted authority over local matters that is similar to the authority that the several States possess, but Puerto Rico remains subject to the powers of Congress under the Territory Clause of the Constitution of the United States.
(3) The approximately 3,700,000 residents of Puerto Rico do not have a democratic form of government at the national level, because United States citizens residing in the territory are disenfranchised in the election for the President and the Vice President of the United States, are not represented in the United States Senate, and their one representative in the United States House of Representatives can only vote in committees of the United States House of Representatives.
(4) The Federal Government may--and often does--treat Puerto Rico and its residents unequally under Federal program, tax, and other laws relative to the several States and the District of Columbia and their residents.
(5) On November 6, 2012, the Government of Puerto Rico held a two-part referendum. The first question asked voters if Puerto Rico `should continue to have its present form of territorial status'. Of the 1,798,987 voters who chose an option, 53.97 percent voted against continued territorial status.
(6) The second question asked voters to express their preference among the three possible alternatives to territorial status: statehood, independence, and nationhood in free association with the United States. Of the 1,363,854 voters who chose an option, 61.16 percent voted for statehood.
(7) The number of votes cast in favor of statehood exceeded the number of votes cast in favor of continued territorial status.
(b) Purpose- The purpose of this Act is to provide for a federally authorized ratification vote in Puerto Rico on the admission of Puerto Rico into the Union as a State and, if a majority of voters ratify Puerto Rico's desire for statehood, to describe the steps that the President and Congress shall take to enable the admission of Puerto Rico as a State of the Union.

SEC. 3. RATIFICATION VOTE.

The State Elections Commission of Puerto Rico is authorized to provide for a ratification vote on the admission of Puerto Rico into the Union as a State, in accordance with rules and regulations determined by the Commission, including qualifications for voter eligibility, with the following on the ballot:
`As a State:
`(A) Puerto Rico would be permanently united to the other States of the Union.
`(B) All provisions of the Constitution of the United States that apply to the States would apply to Puerto Rico.
`(C) Individuals born in Puerto Rico would be United States citizens by virtue of the Constitution of the United States, instead of by virtue of laws of the United States.
`(D) Puerto Rico would be treated equally with the other States in all Federal laws of general application.
`(E) There would be a period of transition to statehood, during which equal treatment of Puerto Rico in program and tax laws would be phased in.
`(F) Puerto Rico would be represented in the United States Senate by two Senators, in the United States House of Representatives by a number of Representatives in proportion to its share of the national population (and the number of Members of the House of Representatives would be increased by the same number), and for the election of the President and the Vice President of the United States by a number of votes in the Electoral College equal to the number of its Senators and Representatives.
`(G) The Government of Puerto Rico, like the governments of the other States, would have permanent authority over all matters not delegated to the Federal Government or the people by the Constitution of the United States.
Do you want Puerto Rico to be admitted as a State of the United States? YesXX NoXX'.

SEC. 4. IMPLEMENTATION.

(a) Presidential Action- If a majority of votes cast in the ratification vote held under section 3 are for the admission of Puerto Rico as a State of the Union, the President, not later than 180 days after the certification of the vote, shall submit to Congress legislation to admit Puerto Rico as a State of the Union on an equal footing with the several States in all respects, consistent with the terms of this Act.
(b) Legislative Action- If a majority of votes cast in the ratification vote held under section 3 are for the admission of Puerto Rico as a State of the Union, this Act constitutes a commitment by Congress to act, through legislation, to admit Puerto Rico as a State of the Union on an equal footing with the several States in all respects, consistent with the terms of this Act.


THE PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION
            A “constitutional convention” has been proposed to solve the status stalemate in the bill H.R. 1230.  There is a problem with the use of this term in many ways.   
            The preamble of Hr1230 quickly produces a question:  If the Peolpe of Puerto Rico have “a right” to call a Constitutional Convention, why do we need this bill in the first place?
            An immediate objection is also found to the statement: “The term “Self Determination Option” means an option agreed to by a Constitutional Convention in the Commonwealth for a new or modified Commonwealth status, Statehood, or Independence.”  As previously stated there is no such thing as “commonwealth status.” What we have in Puerto Rico is the “status of the commonwealth” which is nothing more than a territorial political ordainment based on federal law. 
            Furthermore, if Puerto Ricans live in a territorial ordainment, why use the term “commonwealth status,” instead of the more appropriate term “territorial status”?  We can predict, with a high degree of accuracy, that in Puerto Rico the campaign will refer to the inappropriate term “Estado Libre Asociado mejorado” which we all know is incorrect and deceitful.
            Any attempt to modify or alter our political ordainment by ourselves would be null; Congress must participate.  Thus, so much for self-determination.  But more important to this process is the fact that all previous attempts to produce “a new or modified Commonwealth status” have failed.  This process in HR1230 is more of the same we have had for 40 years without success.  It seems HR 1230 completely ignores these past experiences.
            A constitutional convention is called upon when there is a need to alter or amend a constitution, or perhaps create a new one.  That’s not the case with Hr1230, which says: “A self determination option must be based on the sovereignty of the People of Puerto Rico and not subject to the plenary powers of the territorial clause of the Constitution of the United States.”  The local constitution is not involved in this process.  What the convention will call for, according to this bill, will be an end to the Puerto Rico Federal Relations Act and to do so will require the consent of Congress.  That’s not a process of self-determination, but of mutual determination.  A more realistic term, and less confusing, would be “free determination.”
            Another reservation I have is that only an enhanced commonwealth defined as non-territorial  would need a call for a Constitutional Convention at this stage of the process.  Does this mean that all those citizens that have voted for a territorial commonwealth will be left out?  Hasn’t this been the major complaint of the PPD about previous processes?  Mr. Eduardo Bahtia has complained that the Task Force Report is stacked against the territorial condition.  But Hr1230 completely wipes out the territory and Mr. Bahtia has said absolutely nothing.
             The process sponsored by Rep. José Serrano and Rep. Luis Fortuño in HR 9000, is more sympathetic to a significant sector of the Puerto Rican community that wishes Puerto Rico remain as a territory of the United States.  This is the sector of the Puerto Rican community that is confused about a status resolution and creates a lack of consensus. 
            Just as important is the fact that the first stage of the Serrano/Fortuño bill is a true process of free determination, where the people will freely decide, whether now or in the future, to end the territorial/colonial status.  The so-called “constitutional convention” will impose upon the People of Puerto Rico an outright end of the territorial/colonial status, even if the majority would prefer such option as citizens of the United States.
            In Section 3 of Hr1230 is specified that the Convention will propose “to the People of Puerto Rico a Self Determination Option, which if approved by the People of Puerto Rico...would be presented to Congress...” for approval.  As said before, so much for “self determination.”  But more important is that the Committee must be concerned about the efforts of the losing options to affect a decision by Congress through intensive lobbying, as has happened before.  In Reps. Serrano/Fortuño bill, Congress is brought into the picture only at the very end of the process when the People of Puerto Rico have reached a final decision and expressed its will.
            I am also concerned that the Convention would produce only one option at a time.  I can foresee a never ending process of amendments and re-submissions, heated discussions, protests, abstentions, boycotts and other acts of defiance that will render the process useless.

SECOND CONCLUSION
            I can’t resist the temptation that Hr1230 is a smoke screen.  What is really behind this idea is to make an attempt at creating a status formula in the convention, which is incompatible with the US Constitution, yet under the jurisdiction of the Congress and with US Citizenship.  The idea is to “demand” from the Congress a forced approval of the proposal, under the concept of “self determination” of the People of Puerto Rico.
            As Congress will be forced to say NO, it is easy to forecast that Puerto Rico will remain a territory for a long time and its US citizens devoid of important constitutional rights.
                        We don’t need a constitutional convention to define options that are incompatible with the US Constitution.  We will need a constitutional convention to define the provisions of a new constitution under the options of separate sovereignty or shared sovereignty, when the People of Puerto Rico so decide.
            Thank you.