News and Politics | May 31, 2008 | Comment on this video (13)

Comes With The Territory

ammedia
Guam and Puerto are US Territories with American citizens who are not allowed to vote for their President of their own country.
  1. groups:
    News and Politics,   Politics,   On Current TV,   Collective Journalism,   3 more
  2. tags:
    News and Politics,  Politics,  Obama,  On Current TV,  10 more
  3. credits:
    ammedia Producer, CJCollectiveWorks Producer, dbeckmann Producer, more
  4.     
    |
    Embed video:
    |

13 comments // Comes With The Territory // Video

  • Julio_Figueroa_Nunez
  • ovacoma4
  • TheBadEye
    • 0
      TheBadEye  

    • A classic example of yellow journalism to make the world believe AMERICA IS EVIL.
      IT’S ALL BUNK!
      Puerto Rico cannot vote for the US President because they are NOT A STATE and no other reason.

      They are not a State, because three times already THEY have rejected StateHood!

      You have to volunteer to VOTE for PRESIDENT, They don’t want it, and the US will not force them to take statehood because it’s not the EVIL EMPIRE the filmmaker would have you believe.

      TAXATION without Representation ? WHAT ?

      Puerto Ricans pay NO US INCOME TAX, yet receive more US Federal Dollars than 15 US states that do pay US INCOME TAX and have greater populations.

      In 2004 Puerto Rico received $ 30,958,000,000.00 That’s right! Nearly 31 BILLION!

      Puerto Rico received more direct US federal funding than any of the following states in 2004:
      Vermont
      Utah
      South Dakota
      North Dakota
      Rhode Island
      New Hampshire
      Nebraska
      Nevada
      Montana
      Main
      Idaho
      Hawaii
      Delaware
      Alaska

      Source: www.census.gov .

      Before commenting, read up a bit watchers.

    • 3 years ago
  • eseemege
    • 0
      eseemege  
    • TheBadEye:

      TheBadEye, calm down and let's have a civil debate...

      The reasons why Puerto Rico is not a state are many, but trust me on one thing, it's not because we have rejected statehood in referendums. To think that it would be as simple as saying we want it is naive. The fact that the US Congress has never seriously discussed the results of any of the referendums or decided to base their relationship with PR on these results is just one of the reasons.

      In order for Puerto Rico to be a state, the US would have to vote on it in every state and each legislature would have to approve it, which I think we know would never happen.

      Also, economic relationship between the US and Puerto Rico would have to change in a disadvantageous way for the US government, meaning we would receive more aids, US companies in Puerto Rico would be held more accountable for their actions, etc.

      Finally, there's also the fact that Puerto Rico would undoubtedly be a democratic state, affecting the "balance" in electoral votes by state that make most US elections a close race and that allows the US government to defend its electoral system.

    • 3 years ago
  • eseemege
    • 0
      eseemege  
    • TheBadEye:

      It's obvious that we can't vote for President because we're not a state, that's the factual, rational, official answer to the issue. What I was discussing in this piece, and what I think the people that produced the other pieces were also discussing is that that premise in and of itself needs to be questioned.

      We vote for our own governor, our senate and our legislature but none of the decisions that these people make are safe from being intervened or even overruled by the US Supreme court. Our economy is controlled by US laws limiting who and how we conduct business with other countries. We fight in American wars and are electable for the draft (actually, in the Vietnam war, more Puerto Ricans died per capita than Americans did because it was proven that they would frequently be sent to the front lines). Our land has been taken in multiple occasions and used for military bases and all sorts of chemical and military experiments (the most famous case would be the Island of Vieques, where even after the US navy was pushed out by an immense wave of civil disobedience, the water and land that was being used is still polluted with everything ranging from Agent Orange to Plutonium. The Federal Government rules our country, has its own court and intervenes as it wishes persecuting pro-independence activists or -even more recently- arresting and charging government officials at will. There's a million examples that I could give you of how abusive the relationship between the US and Puerto Rico is; it's very clear that we're not a state, we're a colony, and as such we are subjects of the US policy but we have no influence over who conducts this policy.

      That is the idea that I was trying to present in this piece -at least in my interview, I did not produce the other parts-. My desire is not to be able to vote for President, it's to be able to live in a free country and a country that controls its own policies and its own destiny. BUT, while the relationship between our countries stays as it is, I think it's entirely unjustifiable to accept the role of silent subjects and submit ourselves to your decisions. It's not just because we would be able to cast a vote for a particular candidate, it's because by us having this right, those candidates would be forced to address us, to take into serious consideration our issues and to hopefully put in motion a process to resolve them.

      NOW, if you still have questions, doubts, accusations or any other things to say, please do so, I appreciate any good debate; just please don't just jump at the chance of attacking a piece as false based on superficial, unanalyzed facts. Maybe you can even follow your own advise and read up a bit...just a bit more.

      I'd suggest you start by the UN hearings that are going to be discussing the case of Puerto Rico on Monday. There you'll get every point of view possible AND maybe then come to a more informed perspective on this issue.

    • 3 years ago
  • eseemege
    • 0
      eseemege  

    • AdaJada, I'm with you, and that is precisely my point.

      My ability to vote in New York only lets me choose a colonial manager, not a leader of my country or a leader preoccupied with the interests of Puerto Rico. And as far as Puerto Rican politics go, there's definitely a lack of leaders there as well but the cloud that overshadows everything is that regardless of what governor we vote for or who's in the senate and legislature, the truth of the matter is that they're subordinates of the US government and whatever laws they pass can be (and occasionally are) overruled by the US Supreme Court.

      What the US needs is to wake up and realize they're basically the last country on Earth to have colonies and that this is yet another example of the hypocrisy in their foreign policy.

    • 3 years ago
  • AdaJada
  • hemlock
  • dbeckmann
    • 0
      dbeckmann  

    • This is one part of many more to come on people who can't vote of all shapes, sizes and situations--coming from your Collective Journalism department!

      Thanks to Angel, Sofia, JP and Marvin for working together on this!

    • 3 years ago
  • JCunliffe
    • 0
      JCunliffe  

    • I'm a huge fan of current and was pleasantly surprised to see this pod on tv. Being born and raised on Guam it was great to see this issue being brought to the attention of our fellow Americans.

      Plenty of college educated Americans have the slightest idea of where Guam is, let alone that it's people are born U.S. citizens. I constantly find myself educating naive friends & strangers alike who may have caught a glimpse of my Guam driver's license stimulating their curiosity.

      Thanks again for this pod. Current is the sh#*!

    • 3 years ago
  • 2thought
  • bastaraki
    • 0
      bastaraki  

    • Bastaraki
      Video presentation is great;

      Shows our concerns for voting a president;
      Comments regarding our voting status in presidential elections is justified;

      Will these two candidates really remember that WE EXIST after they achieve their presidential nominations?;
      Guam does not have an "ELECTORIAL VOTE" which determines who will be president;

      I agree that we are still colonial or territorial subjects of the United States; All these concerns of American Citizenship, voting in Presidential Elections, and having a voice in the US Congress can be resolved if the US Supreme Court can reverse its decision in the Dowes v. Bidwell 1901;
      107 years ago - racism existed in the United States court system - anybody not white was subject to scrutiny; our court system has changed and evolved in a century - maybe if we challenged the decision 1901 something may change;

      bastaraki

      Please read the following information:

      Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court decided whether United States territories were subject to the provisions and protections of the United States Constitution. This question is sometimes stated as "does the Constitution follow the flag?". The resulting decision narrowly held that the U.S. Constitution did not necessarily apply to territories. Instead, the United States Congress had jurisdiction to create law within territories in certain circumstances, particularly dealing with revenue, that would not be allowed by the U.S. Constitution for proper states within the union. It has become known as one of the "Insular Cases".

      The U.S. Supreme Court decided, in a five to four decision, that newly annexed territories were not properly part of the United States for purposes of the U.S. Constitution in the matter of revenues, administrative matter, and the like. However, the court was careful to note that the Constitutional guarantees of a citizen's rights of liberty and property were applicable to all: such guarantees "... cannot be under any circumstances transcended ..." said Justice Edward Douglass White in his concurring opinion. Territories were only due the full protections of the Constitution when the U.S. Congress had incorporated them as an "integral part" of the United States.

      The dissent written by Justice John Marshall Harlan held that the U.S. Congress was always bound to enact laws within the jurisdiction of the Constitution. In it, he said, "This nation is under the control of a written constitution, the supreme law of the land and the only source of the powers which our government, or any branch or officer of it, may exert at any time or at any place." He held that the Congress had no existence, and therefore had no authority, outside of the U.S. Constitution.

      [edit] Consequences
      The idea of territorial incorporation is generally agreed to have arisen from Justice White's concurring decision noted above. Note that incorporation in this case does not refer to the legal process whereby a company takes on certain of the characteristics of a person (for which, see incorporation). The concept of territorial incorporation is that the United States can be proprietor of a territory without having actually incorporated the territory into the United States. These unincorporated territories are not due the full benefits of the U.S. Constitution, as noted from Justice White's decision above.

      This idea has been used in court cases ever since in affirming that the citizens of certain territories can be subject to laws and regulations that are not Constitutionally applicable to other citizens of the United States. Many citizens of territories that have been designated unincorporated have seen the principle of territorial incorporation as a form of oppression (see, for example, Román, Ediberto, "The Alien-Citizen Paradox and Other Consequences of U.S. Colonialism", Florida State University Law Review, 1998).

    • 3 years ago
more from News and Politics:
from the community

top videos