The "commonwealth" status of Puerto Ricans would strengthen their claim under international law to separate from the United States if a majority of Puerto Ricans wished to do so. This is not to say that they have such a right, but their claim would be stronger than California's. Californians enjoy all the rights of U.S. citizens and therefore have no right to secede under international law, even if they take up arms.
Puerto Rico's commonwealth status is also contrary the spirit of the U.S. Constitution. Puerto Rico should be admitted as a full member of the Union, to preserve the republican nature of the federal government. ===== Original Message From Discussion list for con law professors <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ===== >> Prof. Somin writes: >> >Are the Basques of Spain a "people", the Quebecois? >> >Francisco Forest Martin relples: >> Yes and Yes. > >I ask (of both the constitutional and international law folks): >What about Puerto Ricans? Puerto Rico and Puerto Ricans are less a part of >the U.S. than the Basques are of Spain or the Quebecois are of Canada. >Would international law recognize a right of Puerto Ricans to nullify its >current ties with the U.S.? If tomorrow a strong majority of Puerto Ricans >voted in a plebicite to severe the current ties, but the U.S. government >opposed any change, what would be the result under international law? The >current U.S. position on PR is that in order to alter the current >relationship the U.S and PR the U.S. Congress must consent. The argument is >based on both the Territorial Clause of the U.S. Constituion (giving Congres >plenary power over PR) and the PR Constitution (which represents the consent >of the people of PR to the current relationship). It would seem to me that >Puerto Ricans are a "people" and therefore do (or at least should) enjoy a >right of self determination. The hypothesized plebicite would nullify any >popuar sanction to the current relationship between the U.S. and PR and any >consent by the U.S. Congress would be deemed irrelevant. Any holes in this >argument (from the perspective of international law or U.S constitutional >law)? > >Another question: If Californians decided tomorrow to withdraw from the >union the obvious response of the other states would be that California >cannot withdraw without the consent of the other states (or perhaps a >constitutional amendment allowing the withdrawal). What result under >international law, however, if the people of California engaged in armed >revolt with the aim of withdrawal from the union? In other words, would >international law consider Californians and "people"? If so would >international law recognize armed revolution as a legitimate means for >effectuating the Peope of California's right to self determination? > >Carlos Gonzalez >Associate Professor of Law >Rutgers School of Law
