WPC L Ζ~:}0"g<'7Wå1MW&IqyzMy-aA8d|q_ 2x7Te=WE4%}{,qDKPJhXԯ|VpCc_} R59ŽWf% WP7O^:/v0ndO-4pt JPsvGJQkxuvj2KPHvwPIHi'&tU{gqI,E^%5z,s;O=_|fdIű l zNV[9`L EQi򹜠8)߇j> lJ;[>o-@nw{܏t,2&L?3te1|SyHNΌۢ‹{O,|\F7-ēn"# %I 0ADO 0GU: 0AUZ8nT1NUNUF^ w'4+?NEPfRaT mhN^U6U>U*SUB}b)I9K"B&_)g)Nv,^x,b, B,N, 72,^/-b---/vJ7:R<E?,AT B 0c=L 0UL 0L 0M 0N 0O 0P 0dQ 0>R 0S 0CS 0,T 0U 0U 0V 0vW 0AX 0 Y 0Y 0@Z 0Z 0[ 0s\ 0A] 0 ^ 0^ 0_ 0[` 00a 0<Ha 0a 0>Bb 0vb 0`b 0`Vc 0`c 0`d 0`vd 08d 0e 02e 0f 0:g 0YHg 0_g 0 h 0j i 0tj B*k D/"l D+QlN|l 0~l D/n 01n 06n 05o 0:=p 0^wp 0<p 1eq//vq 0NqNq 1uq 72jr//rrbrrrtz}a9_̢T͵6 d\bcb`3+  e988.N 0c 0wW 0 0X 0 0  0s  0N  0D=  1  72 ^<bK 12 "$(,E/3Q5GQ6<E LHP LaserJet 4000 Series PCL 5e,,,,0X(#$  0  ($XXXX<6X9`("Courier NewTT(:2$ !XZXXX    =ZXdd=    0  <4 9Z+ Courier New <6X9`("Courier NewTTXXx6X@DQX@<6X9`(CourierTTXXw6X@QX@ vr Z6Times New Roman Regular<4 9Z+.Courier New Regular3  ʑ2r2(backup3|xmTABLE AUL:\JUDGES\Boudin\TEMPLATE\OPINIONS\ALDRICH.WPT<6X9`(Courier New\  `&Times New Roman%2A`Arial<6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpi- -  $XVXXX  =VXdd=    1    __Igartua_ԀdelaRosav.UnitedStates,32F.3d8(1stCir.  1994)("_Igarta_ԀI");_Igartua_ԀdelaRosav.UnitedStates,229F.3d  80(1stCir.2000)("_Igarta_ԀII");_Igarta_ԄdelaRosav.United \ States,386F.3d313(1stCir.2004)("_Igarta_ԀIII").Thepanelin 2 _Igarta_ԀIIIvacateditsowndecisionandgrantedpanelrehearing, X 404F.3d1(1stCir.2005);andthiscourtthengrantedenbanc . review,407F.3d30(1stCir.2005). ? $XVXXX  =VXdd=    2    _Thefirsttwoofthethreedocumentsarenot"treaties"in  theconstitutionalsense,beinginsteadaspirationaldocuments  neversubmittedbythePresidentforSenateratification.U.S. \ Const.art.II,2,cl.2.NeitherislistedintheState 2 Department'scurrent"treatiesinforce"list.U.S.Departmentof X State,TreatiesinForce2004,atwww.state.gov/s/l/38294.htm.For . convenience,weignorethedistinctionbecauseitdoesnotaffect   theresultinthiscase. v $XVXXX  =VXdd=    3    _SeeUnitedStatesv.Li,206F.3d56,6061(1stCir.2000)  (enbanc)("[T]reatiesdonotgenerallycreaterightsthatare  privatelyenforceableinthefederalcourts"(citingHeadMoney \ Cases,112U.S.580,598(1884));id.at61("presumptionagainst 2 privaterightsofactionunderinternationaltreaties").  $XVXXX  =VXdd=    4    _Simonv.E.Ky.WelfareRightsOrg.,426U.S.26,38(1976)  (unlessinjuryis"likelytoberedressedbyafavorabledecision,"  federalcourt'sexerciseofpower"wouldbegratuitousandthus \ inconsistentwiththeArt.IIIlimitation");Lujanv.Defendersof 2 Wildlife,504U.S.555,561(1992)(redressabilitymustnotbe X "speculative").SeealsoSteelCo.v.CitizensforaBetter . Environment,523U.S.83,10304,103n.5(1998)(_redressability_Ԁat   "core"ofArticleIII).  $XVXXX  =VXdd=    5    _SeeG.A.Res.748(VIII),U.N._GAOR_,8thSess.,459th_plen_.  mtg.at26(1953)(UnitedNationsGeneralAssembly,uponformation  of"politicalassociation"betweenUnitedStatesandPuertoRico, \ "[_r]ecognizes_ԀthatthepeopleoftheCommonwealthofPuertoRico, 2 byexpressingtheirwillinafreeanddemocraticway,have X achievedanewconstitutionalstatus"and"that,whenchoosing . theirconstitutionalandinternationalstatus,thepeopleofthe   CommonwealthofPuertoRicohaveeffectivelyexercisedtheirright   toselfdetermination").  $XVXXX  =VXdd=    6    _SeeRemarksofU.S.AmbassadorRogerNoriegaatOrganization  ofAmericanStatesPermanentCouncilMeeting(Sept.6,2001),in  DigestofUnitedStatesPracticeinInternationalLaw:2001at347, \ OfficeoftheLegalAdvisor,U.S.DepartmentofState(SallyJ. 2 Cummins&DavidP.Stewarteds.,2001)("[T]heUnitedStates X understandsthatthisCharterdoesnotestablishanynewrightsor . obligationsundereitherdomesticorinternationallaw.").   $XVXXX  =VXdd=    7    _SeeBancoNacionaldeCubav.Sabbatino,376U.S.398,412,  43133(1964)(weighingpossibilityof"embarrassmenttothe  ExecutiveBranchinhandlingforeignaffairs");Bakerv.Carr,369 \ U.S.186,217(1962)("potentialityofembarrassmentfrom 2 multifariouspronouncementsbyvariousdepartmentsononequestion" X relevanttojusticiability).SeealsoUnitedStatesv.Lee,106 . U.S.196,209(1882).L:\JUDGES\Boudin\TEMPLATE\OPINIONS\ALDRICH.WPT- - d/ui)L:\JUDGES\Boudin\TEMPLATE\OPINIONS\ALDRICH.WPT- - e   $XVXXX  =VXdd=    8    _Thereisanexception,intheory:iftwothirdsofstate  legislaturessorequest,CongressmustconveneaConstitutional  convention.SeeU.S.Const.art.V.However,nosuchconvention \ haseverbeenconvenedsincetheadoptionoftheConstitution. | $XVXXX  =VXdd=    9    _Thedissentssuggestthattheremightbeotheralternatives e bywhichCongresscouldgrantthePresidentialvotetoresidentsof ; PuertoRico.Theonlyspecificsuggestionisonefirstadvancedby  Judge_Leval_Ԁin_Romeu_v.Cohen,265F.3d118,12830(2dCir.2001)   (_Leval_,J.,writingseparately),underwhichCongresswouldrequire e eachstatetoacceptaproportionalshareofterritorialvoters. ; Seepostat89(Howard,J.,dissenting).Thissuggestionhasbeen  critiquedonthegroundthatthereis"noauthorityinthe  ConstitutionfortheCongress(evenwiththestates'consent)to X enactsuchaprovision."_Romeu_,265F.3dat121(Walker,Jr., . C.J.,concurring);seealsoid.at136(Walker,Jr.,C.J., i  concurring)("IseeonlytworemediesaffordedbytheConstitution: ?  (1)statehood XVXXXV...#XVXX XV#,or(2)aconstitutionalamendment.").Atany   rate,forpurposesof_redressability_Ԁanalysis,itisnomorelikely    thatCongresswouldadoptJudge_Leval_'ssuggestion(whichis  \  probablynotConstitutionallypermissible)thanoneofthetwo  2  alternativesthattheConstitutionprovides. l $XVXXX  =VXdd=    10    _ThestatutepermittedaRhodeIslandbanktobeacquiredby e anoutofstatebank,butonlyiftheotherbankwasbasedin ; anotherNewEnglandstate.Theplaintiffswereshareholdersofa  RhodeIslandbankthathadagreedtomergewithaMassachusetts  bank,andtheysoughttoblockthemerger.Seeid.at77071. X TheyarguedthatthelimitationtoNewEnglandbanksreduced . competitionandthat,withoutthatrestriction,anoutofstate i  bankwouldhavehadtopaymorefortheirstock.Seeid.at771.  $XVXXX  =VXdd=    11    _Weanalyzedthisargumentundertherubricofthe"injury" e requirement,butourreasoningonthatpointappliestothe ; redressabilityrequirement.  $XVXXX  =VXdd=    12    _AfterCongressreceivesthestatementlistingthenumberof e representativestowhicheachstateisentitled,"[_**i]t_**Ԁshallbethe ; dutyoftheClerkoftheHouseofRepresentatives,withinfifteen  calendardaysafterthereceiptofsuchstatement,tosendtothe  executiveofeachStateacertificateofthenumberof X RepresentativestowhichsuchStateisentitled."2U.S.C. . 2a(b).  $XVXXX  =VXdd=    13    _Moreover,oneofthetwomethodsofredresscontemplated e Constitutionalamendmentwouldrequireactionnotjustby ; Congress,butalsothelegislaturesofthirtyeightstates.See  U.S.Const.art.V.  $XVXXX  =VXdd=    14    _TheTuckerActgrantsjurisdictiontotheCourtofFederal e Claims(thenknownastheClaimsCourt)forclaimsagainstthe ; UnitedStates,andprovidesthegovernment'sconsenttosuchsuits. J $XVXXX  =VXdd=    15    _AthirdcasecitedbyJudgeTorruella,FederalElection e Commissionv._Akins_,524U.S.11(1998),doesnotinvolvethe ; likelihoodofactionbyCongress._Akins_wasapetitionforreview  ofanadministrativeagency'sdismissalofanadministrative  complaint.Seeid.at18.Theagency'sgoverningstatute X specificallyauthorizedjudicialreviewofanagency'sdecisionnot . totakecertainaction,see2U.S.C.437g(a)(8)(A),andprovided i  thatthedistrictcourt"maydeclarethatthedismissalof[a] ?  complaintorthefailuretoactiscontrarytolaw,andmaydirect   theCommissiontoconformwithsuchdeclarationwithin30days,"    id.437g(a)(8)(C).Thus,_Akins_involvedanadministrativeagency  \  whichCongressplacedunderunusuallyclosejudicialoversight,  2  evenextendingtotheagency'sexerciseofprosecutorial m  discretion,forwhicheverydeclarationwaspotentiallyaccompanied C  byacoerciveorder"toconformwithsuchdeclarationwithin30   days."Wearenotdealinginthiscasewithasubordinate    governmentagency,createdbystatute,withcarefullycrafted e provisionsforsubstantivejudicialreviewovertheagency's ; decisiontodonothing.Rather,thepartywhoseinactionIgarta  complainsofisCongressitself,acoequalbranchofgovernment  thatisConstitutionallyfreetoignoreanypotentialdeclaration X thatitshouldormustperformvariousactionsentrustedtoits . solediscretionbytheConstitutionitself.Theredressability i  analysisin_Akins_doesnotapplytothiscase.(;3}$ !XZXXX  *+ (_2623  ..*G+M (_25   /%` ` hp x /23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *D+M (_24   ," hp x ,23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *A+M (_23  ` ) hp x )23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *>+M (_22   &hhp x &23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *;+M (_21   #p x #23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *8+M (_20  h  p x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *5+M (_19   pp x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *2+M (_18    x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  * (_1723  Ԁ*GM (_16   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *DM (_15   ," hp x ,23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *AM (_14  ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *>M (_13   &hhp x &23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *;M (_12   #p x #23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *8M (_11  h  p x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *5M (_10   pp x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  (2M &_9    x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  ( &_823  (GM &_7   /%` ` hp x /23   5+ ` hp x 5  (DM &_6   ," hp x ,23   5+ ` hp x 5  (AM &_5  ` ) hp x )23   5+ ` hp x 5  (>M &_4   &hhp x &23   5+ ` hp x 5  (;M &_3   #p x #23   5+ ` hp x 5  (8M &_2  h  p x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  (5M &_1   pp x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  &2M $_    x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  0.Normal<:Definition T<AA:Definition L , 5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 586Definition(''&H1      (&H2  (&H3  (&H4 XXX (&H5  (&H6  20Address8MM6Blockquote , , 5+ ` hp x 5   5+ ` hp x 5,*CITE,dl*CODEK<6X9`(Courier NewKS\  `&Times New RomanS42Emphasis64Hyperlink    <:FollowedHype    4go2Keyboard K<6X9`(Courier NewKS\  `&Times New RomanS <:Preformatted/%  ,Kk %#/K<6X9`(Courier NewKS\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk %#/<:zBottom of 7f(X7  ?%2A`Arial?  S\  `&Times New RomanS7g(X7&  d de)1dxd'dxd<:zTop of For7j(X7  ?%2A`Arial?  S\  `&Times New RomanS7g(X7e)2dxd0KS.SampleK<6X9`(Courier NewKS\  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong 8dl6TypewriterK<6X9`(Courier NewKS\  `&Times New RomanS42Variable: 8HTML MarkupB      2 0CommentB  ?@ABCDEF 35;AGMSY_11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.-.RFTFleming Terrell(O$3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)ui)-.RFTFleming Terrell- -  $XVXXX  =VXdd=    16    _Iacknowledgetheparticipationofamici,whosebriefs e contributedtotheclarificationofvariousimportantissues.I ; regretthatnotallamiciweregrantedtheopportunitytoexpress  themselvesatoralargument.  $XVXXX  =VXdd=    17    _Isthistheconstitutionalequivalentof"restinpeace"? e  XVXXXVOfcourse,ifJudgeLipezandJudgeCampbellarecorrectthatwe ; lackjurisdictiontoconsiderplaintiffs'claim,thenthe  majority'svariousconclusionsonthemeritswouldbemeredicta,  lackinganyprecedentialvalue."Withoutjurisdictionthecourt X cannotproceedatallinanycause.Jurisdictionispowerto . declarethelaw,andwhenitceasestoexist,theonlyfunction i  remainingtothecourtisthatofannouncingthefactand ?  dismissingthecause."Exparte_//McCardle_//,7Wall.506,514,19   _//L.Ed_//.264(1868)(quotedinSteelCo.v.CitizensforaBetter    Environment,523U.S.83,94-95(1998)).Furthermore,ifthe  \  concurringopinioniscorrect,themajorityisissuinganadvisory  2  opinionofthesamekindthatJudgeLipezclaimsresultsfromthe m  declaratoryjudgmentthatIpropose.#XVXX XV#{XVXXXV  $XVXXX  =VXdd=    18    _Reducingthemajorityandconcurringopinionstotheirbare e bones,theformerleavesthefourmillionnationally ; disenfranchisedUnitedStatescitizensresidinginPuertoRicoto  claimtheirrightsthroughanonexistentpoliticalforum,whilethe  latterdenyanexistingjudicialforumtheauthoritytostatethe X actualityofanundeniablefact.Bothoutcomesleavethecitizens . inquestioninanunjustlegallimbo.  $XVXXX  =VXdd=    19    _TheActstatesthat"[_i]n_Ԁacaseofactualcontroversywithin e itsjurisdiction,...anycourtoftheUnitedStates,uponthe ; filingofanappropriatepleading,maydeclaretherightsandother  legalrelationsofanyinterestedpartyseekingsuchdeclaration,  whetherornotfurtherreliefisorcouldbesought."28U.S.C. X 2201(a).{XVXXXV _ XVXXX  =VXdd=    20    ݀U.S.Const.art.VI,cl.2("ThisConstitution,andtheLaws e oftheUnitedStateswhichshallbemadeinPursuancethereof;and ; allTreatiesmade,orwhichshallbemade,undertheAuthorityof  theUnitedStates,shallbethesupremeLawoftheLand;andthe  JudgesineveryStateshallbeboundthereby,anyThinginthe X ConstitutionorLawsofanyStatetotheContrary . notwithstanding."). ~_ XVXXX  =VXdd=    21    Inwhatmustbetheheightofeuphemism,themajorityrefers e tothisturnofeventsasPuertoRico'sbecoming"associated"with ; theUnitedStates.Maj.op.at4.Asimilar,butmorepernicious,  _mischaracterization_Ԁfollowsitsdescriptionofthecongressional  enactmentsthatauthorizedlocalselfgovernmentforPuertoRico, X whichthemajoritycallsan"agreement"fora"unique . 'Commonwealth'status,"id.,andwhichthemajoritystatesresulted i  inthecurrent"negotiatedrelationship,"id.at9(emphasisin ?  original),betweentheU.S.andPuertoRico.Ofcourse,these   statementsaresimplyinaccurateanddonotreflectthefacts.    ThereisnoroomfordoubtthatPublicLaw600,64Stat.319(1950)  \  (codifiedat48_U.S.C_Ԁ731b,etseq.)(authorizingPuertoRicoto  2  enactaconstitutionforlocalselfgovernment),anditssequel, m  PublicLaw447,66Stat.327(1952)(resolutionapprovingPuerto C  Rico'sConstitution),didnothingtochangetheunderlying   constitutionalstatusofPuertoRicoasanunincorporated   territory,subordinatedtoCongress'plenarypowersunderthe `  TerritorialClause,U.S.Const.,Art.IV,3,cl.2.Seegenerally 6 DavidM._Helfeld_,TheHistoricalPreludetotheConstitutionofthe q  CommonwealthofPuertoRico,21Rev._Jur_._U.P.R._Ԁ135(1952);David G M._Helfeld_,CongressionalIntentandAttitudeTowardPublicLaw600  andTheConstitutionoftheCommonwealthofPuertoRico,21Rev.  _Jur_.255(1952)(containingnumerouscitationstotheCongressional d recordandreportsindicatingthatthesemeasuresdidnotchange : PuertoRico'sbasicstatusundertheConstitutionnorCongress' u powersoverthisunincorporatedterritory);KeithBea, K CongressionalResearchService,PoliticalStatusofPuertoRico: ! Background,Options,andIssuesinthe109thCongress,at_CRS_Ԅ2  (updatedJun.6,2005)("Whiletheapprovalofthecommonwealth h constitutionmarkedahistoricchangeinthecivilgovernmentfor > theislands,neitherit,northepubliclawsapprovedbyCongress y in1950and1952,revokedstatutoryprovisionsconcerningthelegal O relationshipofPuertoRicototheUnitedStates.This %  relationshipisbasedontheTerritorialClauseoftheU.S. ! Constitution.").Itisnotjustthemajority'sinaccuraciesin  l" describingthecolonialrelationshipbetweenPuertoRicoandthe !B# UnitedStatestowhichIobject.Themajority'sunfortunatechoice }"$ oflanguageobviouslyfavorsthecolonialconditionandthisbias S#% will,withoutanyquestionordoubt,beexploitedpolitically. )$& M   ThedebateoverwhatstatusPuertoRicooughttohavewith e respecttotheUnitedStatesis,ofcourse,hotlycontested.What ; thatstatusshouldbeisnottheissuebeforeus.Theonlyissue  iswhethertheU.S.citizensinPuertoRicoshouldhavetheright  tovotenationally.TherighttovotewillbenefitallU.S. X citizensresidinginPuertoRicoregardlessoftheirpositionon . status,sinceitwillgivethemameaningfulpoliticalvoiceuntil i  thatissueisresolved,andonthatissueitself.  $XVXXX  =VXdd=    22    _Infact,PuertoRicohadbeenrepresentedintheSpanish e Cortesasearlyas1812,see_Constituci;n_Ԁ_politica_Ԁdela_Monarqua_ ; _Espaola_(promulgatedinCadizonMar.18,1812),asaresultof  whichitsonedeputy,_Ram;n_ԀPowers,becameVicePresidentofthe  Cortesin1812.Thereafter,dependingonthevagariesofSpanish X politics,constitutions,andspeciallawsenactedtoapplyto . Spain'soverseasprovincesandcolonies,PuertoRicowasvariously i  representedintheCortes. U_ XVXXX  =VXdd=    23    ݀JohnHay,U.S.AmbassadortoGreatBritainin1898,anda e leadingexpansionistofthetime,wrotetothenColonelTheodore ; Roosevelt,atthetimeofonlyRoughRiderfame,"[_i]t_Ԁhasbeena  splendidlittlewar;begunwiththehighestmotives,carriedon  withmagnificentintelligenceandspirit,favoredbythatfortune X whichlovesthebrave."Frank_Freidel_,TheSplendidLittleWar3 . M (1958);HughThomas,Cuba,ThePursuitofFreedom404(1971). _ XVXXX  =VXdd=    24    ݀Seegenerally_Jos_Ԁ_Tras_Ԁ_Monge_,PuertoRico:TheTrialsof e theOldestColonyintheWorlddd(1997). _ XVXXX  =VXdd=    25    ݀U.S.troopswerereceivedin_Ponce_,PuertoRico'ssecond e largestcity,bythemunicipalbandplayingthe"StarSpangled ; Banner,"andGeneralNelsonMiles,commandinggeneralofthe  expeditionaryforcewiredWashington:"Pleasesendanynational  colorsthatcanbespared,tobegiventothedifferent X municipalities."1MessagesandDocuments,18981899. _ XVXXX  =VXdd=    26    ݀SeeAntonioSalvador_Pedreira_,El_Ao_ԀTerribledel87:Sus e _Antecedentes_ԀySus_Consecuencias_,Ed._Edil_,RioPiedras(1974). _ XVXXX  =VXdd=    27     XXӀSeeTreatyBetweentheUnitedStatesofAmericaandthe e FrenchRepublic,April30,1803,U.S.Fr.art.III,8Stat.200, ; 202(LouisianaPurchase);TreatyofAmity,Settlement,andLimits,  BetweentheUnitedStatesofAmericaandHisCatholicMajesty,Feb.  22,1819,U.S.Spain,art.6,8Stat.252(acquisitionofFlorida); X TreatyofGuadalupeHidalgo,Feb.2,1848,U.S.Mex.,art.VIII,9 . Stat.922(acquisitionofCalifornia);_Gadsen_ԀTreaty,Dec.30, i  1853,U.S.Mex.,art.V,10Stat.1031(acquisitionofArizona); ?  TreatyconcerningtheCessionofAlaska,Mar.30,1867,U.S.Russ.,   artIII,15Stat.539(acquisitionofAlaska);ActofApr.30,    1900,ch.1,4,cl.339,31Stat.141(providingagovernmentfor  \  Hawaii).Hawaiiwasactuallyannexedin1898,seeJointResolution  2  ToprovideforannexingtheHawaiianIslandstotheUnitedStates, m  30Stat.750(1898),twoyearsbeforecitizenshipwasgranted. _ XVXXX  =VXdd=    28    Between1900and1932,PuertoRicowasofficiallymisspelled e as"PortoRico,"asaresultoftheincorrectspellingofthe ; Island'snameintheEnglishversionoftheTreatyofParisin  1898.Thisincorrectspellingwasthereafterusedinthe_Foraker_  Actin1900,afterwhichittookthirtytwoyearstopersuade X Congressthat"Porto"isPortugueseandthatthecorrectSpanish . nameshouldberestored.Thiswasfinallydonebyjointresolution i  onMay17,1932.JointResolutiontochangethenameof"Porto ?  Rico"to"PuertoRico,"ch.190,47Stat.158(1932). _ XVXXX  =VXdd=    29    ݀Anational,asdistinguishedfromacitizen,whois"a e memberofapoliticalcommunity,owingallegiancetothecommunity ; andbeingentitledtoenjoyallitscivilrightsandprotections,"  Black'sLawDictionary261(8thed.2004),isapersonwhoowes  allegiancetoastatebutdoesnotenjoythefullrightsofa X citizen.See_Jos_ԀA._Cabranes_,CitizenshipandtheAmerican . Empire,127U.Pa.L.Rev.391(1978);seealsoGonzalezv. i  Williams,192U.S.1,1213(1904);cf._Dred_ԀScottv.Sanford,60 ?  U.S.(19How.)393,404(1857)(holdingthat"a_negro_ԀofAfrican   descent,[whose]ancestorswereofpureAfricanblood,andwere    broughtintothiscountryandsoldasslaves,"id.at397,wasnot  \  entitledtotheprivilegesandimmunitiesoftheConstitution  2  accordedtocitizens). _ XVXXX  =VXdd=    30    ݀DeLimav._Bidwell_,182U.S.1(1901);_Goetze_v.United e States,182U.S.221(1901);Dooleyv.UnitedStates,182U.S.222 ; (1901);Armstrongv.UnitedStates,182U.S.243(1901);_Downes_v.  _Bidwell_,182U.S.244(1901);_Huus_v.NewYork&PortoRico  SteamshipCo.,182U.S.392(1901).SeegenerallyJuanR. X Torruella,TheSupremeCourtandPuertoRico:TheDoctrineof . SeparateandUnequal(1985). _ XVXXX  =VXdd=    31    AsFinelyPeterDunne,apopularpoliticalwitofthetime e saidabouttheInsularCases,"[_n]o_Ԁmatterwhetherth'constitution ; followsth'flagornot,th'supremecourtfollowsth'_ilection_  results."FinleyPeterDunne,Mr.Dooley'sOpinions26(1901).  WhethertheConstitutionappliedintheterritoriesacquiredasa X resultoftheSpanishAmericanWarwas,ofcourse,centraltothe . InsularCases,andamajorissueinthe1900elections,whichwere i  wonbyMcKinleyandthosewhofavoredoverseasterritorial ?  expansionwithoutextensionoftheConstitution.SeeLa_Feber_,   "TheElectionsof1900,"in3HistoryofAmericanPresidential    Elections,178919681877(ArthurM.Schlesinger,Jr.ed.,1971). _ XVXXX  =VXdd=    32    ݀See,e.g.,SeldenBacon,TerritoryandtheConstitution,10 e Yale_L.J._Ԁ99(1901);WilliamW.Howe,TheLawofOurNew ; Possessions,9Yale_L.J._Ԁ379(1900);CharlesC._Langdell_,The  StatusofOurNewTerritories,12_Harv_.L.Rev.365(1899);Carman  F.Randolph,ConstitutionalAspectsofAnnexation,12_Harv_.L.Rev. X 291(1898);JamesBradleyThayer,OurNewPossessions,12_Harv_.L. . Rev.464,467(1899)("Letmeatonceandshortlysaythat,inmy i  judgment,thereisnolackofpowerinournationoflegal, ?  constitutionalpower,togoverntheseislandsascolonies,   substantiallyasEnglandmightgovernthem....");cf.SimeonE.     Baldwin,TheConstitutionalQuestionsIncidenttotheAcquisition e andGovernmentbytheUnitedStatesofIslandTerritory,12_Harv_. ; L.Rev.393(1899).SeegenerallyFredericR._Coudert_,The  EvolutionoftheDoctrineofTerritorialIncorporation,26_Colum_.  L.Rev.823(1926). _ XVXXX  =VXdd=    33    ݀In_Downes_,182U.S.244,JusticeBrowndeliveredthe e judgmentofthecourt.JusticeWhitedeliveredaconcurring ; opinionjoinedbyJustices_Shirra_ԀandMcKenna.JusticeGrayalso  deliveredaconcurringopinion.ChiefJusticeFullerdissented,  withJusticesHarlan,Brewerand_Peckham_Ԁjoining.JusticeHarlan X alsofiledaseparatedissent. ,_ XVXXX  =VXdd=    34    ݀Forafullaccountsee_Cabranes_,supranote29. _ XVXXX  =VXdd=    35    ݀Foranindepthaccountoftheeventsleadinguptothe e passageoftheJonesAct,particularlytheacrimoniousdebatesthat ; precededitspassage,see_//Cabranes_//,supranote29 ,at47185. _ XVXXX  =VXdd=    36    ݀ChiefJusticeTaftwho,ofcourse,hadbeenPresidentofthe e UnitedStatesfrom1909to1912,hadalongandsomewhatfractious ; experiencewiththeUnitedStates'newlyacquiredcolonies.Hedid  notneedtobeinfluencedbyacademicsonquestionsofexpansionism  orhowtodealwiththecolonies.In1900,hebecamethefirst X civiliangovernorofthePhilippineIslandsatatimewhenthe . _//Aguinaldo_//ԀInsurrectionawarthatledtothousandsofU.S. i  casualtiesandover100,000civiliandeaths,manymorethaninthe ?  entireSpanishAmericanWarwasinfullswing.Seegenerally   Brian_//McAllister_//ԀLinn,ThePhilippineWar,18991902(2000).In    1 1904,whileSecretaryofWarunderPresidentTheodoreRoosevelt, e TaftoversawnotonlythePhilippines,butalsoCubaandPuerto ; Rico.In1906,hewassenttoCubaasitsprovisionalgovernor  underthePlattAmendmenttotheCubanConstitution,whichallowed  theUnitedStatestointerveneinCubanaffairsduringtimesof X "unrest."However,itwasduringhistimeasPresidentthatTaft . becameopenlydisenchantedwithPuertoRicoanditsinhabitantsas i  aresultofthesocalledBudgetCrisisof1909.SeeTrumanR. ?  Clark,PresidentTaftandthePuertoRicanAppropriationsCrisisof   1909,26TheAmericas15270(1969).PresidentTaftaccused    PuertoRico'selectedleadersofirresponsibilityandpolitical  \  immaturity,andsuggestedthattoomuchpowerhadbeengivento  2  PuertoRicans"fortheirowngood."MessagefromPresidentTaftto m  Congress,S.Rep.No.6110,at5.SeegenerallyHenryF._//Pringle_//, C  TheLifeandTimesofWilliamHowardTaft(1939). Z $XVXXX  =VXdd=    37    _ThedebateoverwhatstatusPuertoRicooughttohavewith e respecttotheUnitedStatesis,ofcourse,hotlycontested.The ; righttovotewillbenefitallU.S.citizensresidinginPuerto  Rico,regardlessoftheirpositiononstatussinceitwillgive  themameaningfulpoliticalvoiceuntilthatissueisresolved.  $XVXXX  =VXdd=    38    _AlthoughIplaceJudgeLipez'sconcurrenceinaseparate e category,Idisagreewithhisconclusionthatwelackjurisdiction ; todeclaretheCongresshasfailedtotakeanyactiontocomply  withitsinternationalobligations.Thisfailureaffectsthe  "rightsandlegalrelationsofaninterestedparty,"theU.S. X citizensinquestion,"whetherornotfurtherreliefisorcouldbe . sought."28U.S.C.2201(a).Thereisnothinghypotheticalabout i  plaintiffs'nationaldisenfranchisement.Wehavetheauthorityto ?  acknowledgethatcondition,andCongress'failuretotakeany   actiontocorrectitdespitehavingcommitted,underbinding    internationallaw,todoso.JudgeLipezmisstatestheissuesas  \  framedbymydissentwhenhefocusesonCongress'failure"to  2  eitheradmit[]PuertoRicoasastateorpropose[]...[a m  constitutional]amendment."Supraat21(Lipez,J.,concurring). C   Althoughthoseareamongtheremedialoptionsavailable,itmakes e nodifferencewhetheritbetheseorotheralternativesthat ; Congressadopts.Theonlyunavailableoptionistodonothing,  becausethatisaviolationofaninternationalpledgewhichhas  becomeUnitedStateslaw.Failuretoacthaslegalconsequences X thatcreateacaseandcontroversylegallycognizablebya . declaratoryjudgmentevenifreliefisnotavailable. X_ XVXXX  =VXdd=    39    Customaryinternationallawispartofthe"Law[]ofthe e UnitedStates"withinthemeaningofArticleIII.See,e.g.,_//Sosa_//, ; 124_//S.Ct_//.at2764("[_//T]he_//ԀdomesticlawoftheUnitedStates  recognizesthelawofnations.");seealsoRestatement111,_//cmt_//.  e;Louis_//Henkin_//,InternationalLawasLawintheUnitedStates,82 X Mich.L.Rev.1555,1566(1982). _ XVXXX  =VXdd=    40    ݀Inaddition,theAmericanConventionofHuman e Rights("_//ACHR_//"),adoptedin1969andsignedbytwentysixcountries ; (notincludingtheUnitedStates)between1969and2000,provides  inArticle23(1)that"everycitizenshallenjoy...rightsand  opportunities:...tovote...ingenuineperiodicelections, X whichshallbebyuniversalandequalsuffrage...."_//ACHR_//, . openedforsignatureNov.22,1969,1144_//U.N.T.S._//Ԁ123(enteredinto i  forceJul.18,1978).http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2001/5656.htm. )_ XVXXX  =VXdd=    41    TheUnitedStatesfurtheragreedtoanenforcementmechanism e fortherealizationandsecurityoftherightsestablishedinthe ; _ICCPR_.EachStatePartyundertook"[_t]o_Ԁensurethatanyperson  whose[_ICCPR_]rightsorfreedoms...areviolatedshallhavean  effectiveremedy,"toensurethattheserightswouldbe"determined X bycompetentjudicial,administrativeorlegislativeauthorities, . orbyanycompetentauthorityprovidedforbythelegalsystemof i  theState,"andthat"thepossibilitiesofjudicialremedy"would ?  bedeveloped. Id.art.2,para.3(emphasisadded). ! $XVXXX  =VXdd=    42    _ԀTheSenatealsomadeactualreservationsunderwhichits e obligationstocomplywithvariousprovisionsofthe_//ICCPR_//Ԁwere ; limited.See138Cong.Rec.S4781,S4783(stating,interalia,  thattheUnitedStateswillnottakeanystepstocomplywith_//ICCPR_//  Article20thatwouldinfringeontherightoffreespeechand X association;reiteratingtheapplicabilityofcapitalpunishment . foradultsandminors;deeming_//ICCPR_//ԀArticle7prohibitionson i  "cruel,inhumanordegradingtreatmentorpunishment"toapplyonly ?  totreatmentdeemed"cruelandunusual"underdomestic   constitutionallaw;decliningtoadhereto_//ICCPR_//ԀArticle15,    Paragraph1;andreservingtherighttotreatjuveniles,under  \  certaincircumstances,asadults,notwithstandingtheprovisions  2  of_//ICCPR_//ԀArticle10,Paragraphs2(b)and3,andArticle14, m  Paragraph4).  C    Incontrast,noreservationsorotherlimitationstothe   specificobligationscontainedinArticle25weremade,asidefrom   thedeclarationofnonselfexecutionapplicabletoallsubstantive `  articlesofthe_//ICCPR_//.Id.ThisisindicativeoftheSenate's 6 intenttoaccepttheobligationoffullcompliancewiththat q  provisionofthe_//ICCPR_//.Seealsoid.atS4784(addingthe G Understanding"[_//t]hat_//ԀtheUnitedStatesunderstandsthatthis  CovenantshallbeimplementedbytheFederalGovernmenttothe  extentthatitexerciseslegislativeandjudicialjurisdictionover d thematterscoveredtherein,andotherwisebythestateandlocal : governments,"andthat"theFederalGovernmentshalltakemeasures u appropriatetotheFederalsystem"toensurethat"stateorlocal K  governmentsmaytakeappropriatemeasuresforthefulfillmentof e theCovenant"formattersundertheirjurisdiction)(emphasis ; added);Exec.OrderNo.13,107,63Fed.Reg.68,991(Dec.10,1998)  ("ItshallbethepolicyandpracticeoftheGovernmentofthe  UnitedStates,beingcommittedtotheprotectionandpromotionof X humanrightsandfundamentalfreedoms,fullytorespectand . implementitsobligationsunderinternationalhumanrightstreaties i  towhichitisaparty,includingthe_//ICCPR_//Ԁ....").{XVXXXV  $XVXXX  =VXdd=    43    _AsJudgeHowardnotes,thisstatementfrom_Sosa_isnotat e oddswiththeconclusionthatthenonselfexecutiondeclarationis ; not,itself,bindingonthecourts.Seeinfraat105,n.63  (Howard,J.,dissenting). [_ XVXXX  =VXdd=    44    Theuniversalityrequirementdoesnotimplythatcompliance e withcustomaryinternationallawnormsbeperfect."Statesneed ; notbeuniversallysuccessfulinimplementingtheprinciplein  orderforaruleofcustomaryinternationallawtoarise.Ifthat  werethecase,therewouldbenoneedforcustomaryinternational X law.Buttheprinciplemustbemorethanmerelyprofessedor . aspirational."Flores,406F.3dat80;seealsoRestatement102, i   _//cmt_//.b. ._ XVXXX  =VXdd=    45    ݀See,e.g.,FreedomHouse,ListofElectoralDemocracies,at e 4_sO  5  www.freedomhouse.org/research/freeworld/2003/tables.htm67sOK  7_xyԀ(2003) ; (listing121countrieswhichhaveatleastfourdifferentsystems  ofdemocracyincludingparliamentary,federalparliamentary,  presidentialparliamentary,andfederalpresidential X parliamentary).http://www.freedomhouse.org _ XVXXX  =VXdd=    46    ݀SeeAfghansStudyingtheArtofVoting,N.Y.Times,Oct.4, e 2004,atA1(discussingAfghanistan'sfirsteverdemocratic ; elections);DavidE.Sanger&StephenR._Weisman_,TheIraqi  Election:TheWhiteHouse;BushHailsVote,N.Y.Times,Jan.31,  2005,atA1(reportingthatPresidentBushcalledtheelectionin X Iraqa"triumphantmomentinhiseffortstospurdemocratic . movementsthroughout[the]MiddleEast");StevenR._Weisman_,U.S. i  AsksOtherstoPressureIraqtoBeInclusive,N.Y.Times,Jun.12, ?  2005,atA1(reportingthatU.S.seeksto"enlist[]Europe,the   ArabworldandtheUnitedNationstopressuretheBagdadgovernment    toincludeminoritiesinthepoliticalprocess"). $_ XVXXX  =VXdd=    47    ݀Comparethelanguageoftheinternationalinstruments e describedabovewiththeextendeddiscussionofthedefinitionof ; "piracy"inUnitedStatesv.Smith,18U.S.(5Wheat.)153,16063  (1820)andthecommentinthedissentthatthereasonsuchlengthy  discussionanddefinitionwasthe"uncertaintywhichitwasknown X existedonthesubjectinthelawofnations...."Id.at17071 .  (_ Livingston_ ,J.,dissenting).  _ XVXXX  =VXdd=    48    ݀The"caseorcontroversy"requirementsofArticleIIIand e theDeclaratoryJudgmentActarecoextensive.See_Teva_ԀPharm. ; USA,Inc.v._Pfizer_,Inc.,395F.3d1324,1340(Fed.Cir.2005).(;3$2#  0  .3  0  (O;$0  2#  a  .3  0` (#(#(b$0  0` (#(#2#   .3  0 ` (#` (#(xir$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#2#(  0  )3  0 (# (#($0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#2#(  a  )3  0h(#(#(F$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#2#(   )3  0h(#h(#($0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#2#  0  )3  0(#(#({$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#0(#(#2#  a  )3  0p(#(#(F$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#0(#(#0p(#(#2#     )3  0p(#p(# xGaeimquy}Bullet ListBullets Listui)L:\JUDGES\Boudin\TEMPLATE\OPINIONS\ALDRICH.WPT- -     $XVXXX  =VXdd=    49    _NowSeniorCircuitJudge. A $XVXXX  =VXdd=    50    _"[_T]he_Ԁrighttovote,asthecitizen'slinktohislawsand e government,isprotectiveofallfundamentalrightsand ; privileges."Evansv._Cornman_,398U.S.419,422(1970)."[_M]ost_  U.S.citizenshavealimited,constitutionallyenforceablerightto  voteinpresidentialelectionsasthoseelectionsarecurrently X configured.TheStateshaveuniformlyexercisedtheirArticleII . authoritybydelegatingthepowertoappointpresidential(and i  vicepresidential)electorstoU.S.citizensresidingintheState ?  tobeexercisedindemocraticelections."_Romeu_,265F.3dat123.  $XVXXX  =VXdd=    51    _"Sincetherighttoexercisethefranchiseinafreeand e unimpairedmannerispreservativeofotherbasicciviland ; politicalrights,anyallegedinfringementoftherightofcitizens  tovotemustbecarefullyandmeticulouslyscrutinized."Reynolds  v.Sims,377U.S.533,562(1964);seealsoKramerv.UnionFree X SchoolDistrict,395U.S.621,626(1969)("[_//C]areful_//Ԁexamination . isnecessarybecausestatutesdistributingthefranchiseconstitute i  thefoundationofourrepresentativesociety.Anyunjustified ?  discriminationindeterminingwhomayparticipateinpolitical   affairsorintheselectionofpublicofficialsunderminesthe    legitimacyofrepresentativegovernment.").  $XVXXX  =VXdd=    52    _Beyondmyownviewsexpressedhere,Iagreewithmuchof e Judge_//Torruella_//'sdissent.Inparticular,Iagreesubstantially ; withhisreasoninginPartsI.,II.B.1.,andII.C.1.andjoin  himinthoserespects. ' $XVXXX  =VXdd=    53    _Courtsandcommentatorshaveusedtheterm"nonself  executing"tomeanmanythings.SeeD.Cinotti,Note,TheNew  Isolationism:NonSelfExecutionDeclarationsandTreatiesasthe \ SupremeLawoftheLand,91Geo.L.Rev.1277,1279(2003).For 2 purposesofthisopinion,Iunderstandthetermtomeanthata X treatydoesnotcreateindividuallyenforceablerightswithoutthe . passageofimplementinglegislation.SeeColumbiaMarineServs.,   Inc.v.ReffetLtd.,861F.2d18,21(2dCir.1988)(statingthat   inorderforanactiontoariseunderatreatyforpurposesof28 `  U.S.C.1331,"thetreatymustbeselfexecuting,i.e.,itmust 6   prescriberulesbywhichprivaterightsmaybedetermined");J.  \  Paust,Avoiding"Fraudulent"ExecutivePolicy:Analysisofthe  2  CovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights,42DePaulL.Rev.1257,   1258n.4(1992)(explainingthatthepurposeofthenonself   executiondeclarationintheICCPRwasintendedtoassurethatthe d  TreatywouldnotcreateaprivatecauseofactioninU.S.courts). ( $XVXXX  =VXdd=    54    _Articles1through27aretherightsgrantingprovisionsof  theICCPR.  $XVXXX  =VXdd=    55    _Itmightalsobesaidthatasaprudentialmatterthe  Senate'sdeclarationprecludesreliefundertheDeclaratory  JudgmentAct.Forthereasonsexpressedherein,Iwouldnotdecide \ thisprudentialquestionatthemotiontodismissstage.  $XVXXX  =VXdd=    56    _Thispracticeappearstobe,atleastinpart,aresponseto  theproposedBrickerAmendment,whichwouldhaveamendedthe  Constitutiontorequireimplementinglegislationbeforeatreaty \ couldhavedomesticeffect.SeeS.J.Res.130,printedat98Cong. 2 Rec.90708(1952).SomescholarshaveconcludedthattheSenate X viewednonselfexecutingdeclarationsasawaytoachievethe . objectivesoftheBrickerAmendmentwithouthavingtoamendthe   Constitution.SeeL.Henkin,U.S.RatificationofHumanRights   Conventions:TheGhostofSenatorBricker,89Am.J.Int'lL.341, `  34850(1995).SeealsoD.Sloss,TheDomesticationofInt'lHuman 6   Rights:NonSelfExecutingDeclarationsandHumanRightsTreaties,  \  24YaleJ.Int'lL.129,173(1999).  $XVXXX  =VXdd=    57    _TheSupremacyClausestates:     `  0  0`   ThisConstitution,andtheLawsofthe \ UnitedStatesmadeinPursuanceThereof; 2 andallwhichshallbemadeinPursuance X Thereof;andallTreatiesmade,orwhich . shallbemade,undertheAuthorityofthe   UnitedStates,shallbethesupremelaw   oftheland;andthejudgesinevery `  Stateshallbeboundthereby,anyThing 6   intheConstitutionofLawsofanyState  \  totheContrarynotwithstanding.  2  (Emphasissupplied).  $XVXXX  =VXdd=    58    _Inasimilarvein,theCommitteeonStyleremovedfromthe  finalversionoftheSupremacyClauselanguagethatwouldhave  giventhenationalgovernmentthepowerto"enforcetreaties."The \ Committeeremovedthislanguagebecauseitwasredundant;the 2 SupremacyClausealreadydeclaredthattreatieswerelaw. X See_Farrand_,supra,at38990.  $XVXXX  =VXdd=    59    _Forafullerdiscussion,see_Paust_,supra;_Vzquez_,supra;  andM._Flaherty_,HistoryRight?:HistoricalScholarship,Original  Understanding,andTreatiesas"SupremeLawoftheLand",99_Colum_. \ L.Rev.2095(1999).Foranalternateinterpretationofthe 2 Foundingperiod,seeJ._Yoo_,GlobalismandtheConstitution: X Treaties,NonSelfExecution,andtheOriginalUnderstanding,99 . _Colum_.L.Rev.1955(1999).  $XVXXX  =VXdd=    60    _Inanotherearlycase,ChiefJusticeMarshallechoedthis  sentiment.Owingsv.NorwoodLessee,9U.S.(5Cranch)344,34849  (1809)("Wheneverarightgrowsoutof,orisprotectedbya \ treaty,itistobeprotected."). G $XVXXX  =VXdd=    61    _JudgeTorruellatookasimilarviewinhisdissentinLi.  See206F.3dat7071. = $XVXXX  =VXdd=    62    _Othercommentators,includingProfessorHenkin,sharethis  view.See_//Henkin_//,ForeignAffairs,supraat202(describingthe  Senate'spracticeofdeclaringtreatiesasnonselfexecutingtobe \ "antiConstitutionalinspiritandhighlyproblematicasamatter 2 oflaw");_//Henkin_//,TheGhostofSenator_//Bricker_//,supraat346 X (statingthatnonselfexecutiondeclarationsbytheSenate"maybe . unconstitutional").SeealsoD._//Cinnoti_//,supra;J.Quigley,The   RuleofNonInquiryandHumanRightsTreaties,45Cath.L.Rev.   1213(1995);J.Quigley,The_//Int'l_//ԀCovenantonCivilandPolitical `  RightsandtheSupremacyClause,42DePaulL.Rev.1287(1993); 6   _//Paust_//,AvoidingFraudulentExecutivePolicy,supra;C.Dearborn,  \  Note,TheDomesticLegalEffectofDeclarationsthatTreaty  2   ProvisionsAreNotSelfExecuting,57Tex.L.Rev.233(1979).     { $XVXXX  =VXdd=    63    __Sosa_v.Alvarez_Machian_,124S.Ct.2739(2004)isnottothe  contrary.Thatcaseinvolvedwhethertherighttobefreefrom  arbitraryabductionanddetentionwasprotectedundercustomary \ internationallaw.Theplaintiffin_Sosa_didnotsuedirectly 2 underthe_ICCPR_ԀbutratherarguedthattheTreaty'stermshelped X establishtherelevantprincipleofcustomaryinternationallawfor . purposesofhisAlienTortActclaim.TheCourtreliedonthe   Senate'snonselfexecutiondeclarationinthe_ICCPR_Ԁasonefactor   tosupportitsconclusionthatthe_ICCPR_Ԁcouldnot,byitself, `  establisharuleofcustomaryinternationallaw.Seeid.at2763 6   3 &2767.ButtheCourtwasnotfacedwith(anddidnotdecide)  whethertheSenate'sdeclarationipsofactopreventsaplaintiff  fromsuingdirectlyundertheTreaty.Becausethequestionin_Sosa_ \ wasnotthebindingeffectoftheSenate'snonselfexecution 2 declarationindeterminingwhetherthe_ICCPR_Ԁestablishesaprivate X causeofaction,thepartiesdidnotpresenttheCourtwith(andit . didnotaddress)theseparationofpowersargumentsquestioningthe   Senate'sauthoritytoissuesuchdeclarations.See,e.g.,Reply   BriefofUnitedStatesat8,_Sosa_,supra. `    $XVXXX  =VXdd=    64    _Iamlesssanguineaboutwhetherplaintiffsmaysuccessfully  pressaclaimundercustomaryinternationallaw.Themost  promisingavenueforchallengingPuertoRico'sstatusas_//violative_// \ ofacustomaryinternationalnormaclaimarguingthatcustomary 2 internationallawrecognizesarightofpeoplestoself X determinationandimposesonnationsanobligationtodecolonize . moreproperlybelongsnottoanindividualPuertoRican,buttothe   CommonwealthofPuertoRicoitself,thepoliticalleadershipof   whichiselectedbyindividualPuertoRicansand,presumably,would `  beresponsivetotheelectorate.See,e.g.,DukePowerCo.v. 6   CarolinaEnv.StudyGroup,Inc.,438U.S.59,80(1978);Laurence  \  H.Tribe,AmericanConstitutionalLaw,319(3ded.2000);Erwin  2  _//Chemerinsky_//,ConstitutionalLawPrinciplesandPolicies,2.5.4   (2ded.2002).Insuchalawsuit,therewouldbelessreasonfor   concernthattheplaintiffsmightbeseekingafundamentalchange d  1 intherelationshipbetweentheCommonwealthandtheUnitedStates  thatmanyoftheirfellowPuertoRicansmaynot_desire._  !XVXXX  _TRX3'X3' Letter3'Letter3'LetterT ? * ! X0>XXXV vX X0>     UnitedStatesCourtofAppeals A v  FortheFirstCircuit  G A XVX G  A') ` dE<` A   No.042186   @| | GREGORIOIGARTBADELAROSA,ETAL., K  @Plaintiffs,Appellants,  G  @tt)v.   @UNITEDSTATESOFAMERICA, O  @<< Defendant,Appellee. K  A') ` dE<` A  @ APPEALFROMTHEUNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURT  @ FORTHEDISTRICTOFPUERTORICO 8 @[Hon.RaymondL._Acosta_,U.S.SeniorDistrictJudge] 4 A') ` dE<` A  @'Before u   @@((Boudin,ChiefJudge, !q Campbell,SeniorCircuitJudge,  Torruella,Selya,Lynch,LipezandHoward,CircuitJudges. y! A') ` dE<$!` A %!u#       GregorioIgartadelaRosaforappellants.  "Z%   FranciscoJ._Domenech_withwhomAngelJ.Vargas_Carcaa_, "0& OfficeoftheLegalCounsel&FederalAffairsforthePresident, #' SenateofPuertoRico,wasonbrieffortheSenateofthe $( CommonwealthofPuertoRicoanditsPresident,theHonorable b% ) KennethD._McClintock_,AmicusCuriae. 8&!*   RichardH._Fallon_,Jr.withwhom_Jos_ԀA.Fuentes_Agostini_, '^"+ ReedSmithLLC,JohnM._Garca_,_Garca_Ԁ&_Fernndez_Ԁ_PSC_,_Joaqun_ԀA. '4#, _Mrquez_,PhilipJ._Mause_andDrinker_Biddle_Ԁ&_Reath_Ԁ_LLP_wereon ( $- briefforthePuertoRicanAmericanFoundation,joinedbythe )$. RepublicanPartyofPuertoRico,AmiciCuriae. f*%/   AmyB.Abbott,Kirkpatrick&_Lockhart_ԀNicholsonGraham_LLP_, <+&0 GlennR._Reichardt_,_Shanda_ԀN.Hastings,Kirkpatrick&_Lockhart_ ,b'1 NicholsonGraham_LLP_onbriefforDickThornburghandCitizens' ,8(2 EducationalFoundationUS,AmiciCuriae. -)3?M   Gael_Mahony_,StephenS.Young,MarthaBorn,Holland&Knight  _LLP_andIsrael_Roldn_Ԅ_Gonzlez_ԀonbriefforIsrael_Roldn_Ԅ_Gonzlez_,  AmicusCuriae. \   GregoryG._Katsas_,DeputyAssistantAttorneyGeneral,with 2 whomPeterD._Keisler_,AssistantAttorneyGeneral,H.S._Garca_, X UnitedStatesAttorney,MichaelJaySingerandMatthewM._Collette_, . AppellateStaff,CivilDivision,DepartmentofJustice,wereon   briefforappellee.     *'ddd Xdd Xdd X(#(#,( dd ,( dd ,( dd +   2  2   SIF  @38566@SAugust3,2005 l   RHCB " @38566 @ R(F   (  * !OPINIONENBANC      z   8VXXdXXd8*,X` XX*OY  ` Boudin,ChiefJudge. Thiscasebringsbeforethiscourt  thethirdinaseriesoflawsuitsbyGregorio_Igarta_,aU.S. x citizenresidentinPuertoRico,claimingtheconstitutionalright $t tovotequadrenniallyforPresidentandVicePresidentofthe   UnitedStates.Panelsofthiscourthaverejectedsuchclaimson |  allthreeoccasions. #  1      ׀Wenowdosoagain,thistimeenbanc, ( x  rejectingaswellanadjacentclaim:thatthefailureofthe $  Constitutiontograntthisvoteshouldbedeclaredaviolationof   U.S.treatyobligations. ,|   ` Theconstitutionalclaimisreadilyanswered.Votingfor ( PresidentandVicePresidentoftheUnitedStatesisgoverned  neitherbyrhetoricnorintuitivevaluesbutbyaprovisionofthe 0 Constitution.Thisprovisiondoesnotconferthefranchiseon , "U.S.citizens"buton"Electors"whoaretobe"_appoint[ed_]"by  each"State,"in"suchManner"asthestatelegislaturemaydirect, 4 equaltothenumberofSenatorsandRepresentativestowhomthe 0 stateisentitled.U.S.Const.art.II,1,cl.2; seealsoid.   amend.XII. 8!"  ` Atonetimestatelegislatureschosetheelectors "4$ themselves,seeMcPhersonv.Blacker,146U.S.1,2835(1892);in $& _ themodernmanner,customarilyaU.S.stateprovidesthatitsown  citizenscitizensofthatstatevotefortheelectorsto \ representthatstate.Modernballotsmayomitthenamesofthe X electorsandlistonlythecandidates,soinformitappearsthat   citizensarevotingforPresidentandVicePresidentdirectly.But `  theyarenot:theyarevotingforelectorsand,morepertinent  \  here,theelectorsareelectorsofthestates.    ` PuertoRicoliketheDistrictofColumbia,theVirgin d  Islands,andGuamisnota"state"withinthemeaningofthe `  Constitution.TrailerMarineTransportCorp.v.Rivera_ Vazquez_ ,   977F.2d1,7(1stCir.1992).PuertoRicowasnotoneofthe h original13stateswhoratifiedtheConstitution;norhasitbeen d madeastate,liketheother37statesaddedthereafter,pursuant  totheprocesslaiddownintheConstitution.U.S.Const.art.IV, l 3,cl.1.Norhasitbeengivenelectorsofitsown,aswasthe h DistrictofColumbiaintheTwentyThirdAmendment.   ` PuertoRicobecameassociatedwiththeUnitedStatesas p  anunincorporatedterritoryunderArticleIVoftheConstitution !l" followingthe1898warbetweenthiscountryandSpain.U.S.Const. "$ art.IV,3,cl.2; seeInsularCases,182U.S.1(1901).Its t$& statushasalteredovertheensuingperiod,culminatinginan  &p!( agreementin1952,approvedbythecitizensofPuertoRico,that '#* PuertoRicoshouldhaveaunique"Commonwealth"status;butthe x)$, uniquestatusisnotstatehoodwithinthemeaningofthe $+t&. Constitution.SeeTrailerMarine,977F.2dat7;IgartaII,229  F.3dat8788&_ nn_ .1516(Torruella,J.,concurring).And,in \ recentelections,PuertoRicansthemselveshavebeensubstantially X dividedastowhethertoseekstatehoodstatus.Cf._ Rossello_ Ԅ   Gonzalezv._ Calderon_ Ԅ_ Serra_ ,398F.3d1,45(1stCir.2004). `   ` AsPuertoRicohasnoelectors,itscitizensdonot  \  participateinthepresidentialvoting,althoughtheymaydosoif   theytakeupresidenceinoneofthe50statesand,ofcourse,they d  electtheGovernorofPuertoRico,itslegislature,andanon `  votingdelegatetoCongress.Likeeachstate'sentitlementtotwo   Senatorsregardlessofpopulation,themakeupoftheelectoral h collegeisadirectconsequenceofhowtheframersofthe d Constitutionchosetostructureourgovernmentachoiceitself  basedonpoliticalcompromiseratherthanconceptualperfection. l Note,RethinkingtheElectoralCollegeDebate:TheFramers, h Federalism,andOnePerson,OneVote,114_ Harv_ .L.Rev.2526,2526  31(2001)(discussinghistoricalcommentary). p   ` Thatthefranchiseforchoosingelectorsisconfinedto !l" "states"cannotbe"unconstitutional"becauseitiswhatthe "$ Constitutionitselfprovides.Henceitdoesnogoodtostresshow t$& importantis"therighttovote"forPresident.Althoughwe  &p!( recognizetheloyalty,contributions,andsacrificesofthosewho '#* areincommoncitizensofPuertoRicoandtheUnitedStates,much x)$, thesamecouldhavebeensaidaboutthecitizensoftheDistrictof $+t&. Columbia,whowerevotelessoveramuchlongerperiod.Thepathto  changingtheConstitutionliesnotthroughthecourtsbutthrough \ theconstitutionalamendingprocess,U.S.Const.art.V;andthe X roadtostatehoodifthatiswhatPuertoRico'scitizenswant   runsthroughCongress.U.S.Const.art.IV,3,cl.1. `   ` Thiscourthasthricerejectedtheconstitutionalclaim  \  nowadvancedbyIgarta.TheNinthCircuitreachedthesameresult   inasimilarsuitconcerningGuam.AttorneyGeneralofthe d  TerritoryofGuamv.UnitedStates,738F.2d1017(9thCir.1984). `  TheSupremeCourtdeniedcertiorariinbothIgartaI,514U.S.   1049(1995),andintheNinthCircuitcase,469U.S.1209_ (1985)._ _ _  h Igartahasofferednothingnewinthisthirdcasetosupporthis d constitutionalclaim.Inthisenbancdecision,wenowputthe  constitutionalclaimfullyatrest:itnotonlyisunsupportedby l theConstitutionbutiscontrarytoitsprovisions. h   ` _ Igarta_ 'scomplaintalsorelieduponU.S.treaties!  technically,twoofthethreearenottreaties asapremisefor p  thesuffragerightclaimed. #  2      ׀ Thistheoryhadbeenadvancedand !l" rejectedbythiscourtinIgartaI,32F.3dat10n.1,whichwas "$ bindingonthepanelandcouldnotbealteredbyit._ Charlesbank_   EquityFundIIv.BlindstoGo,Inc.,370F.3d151,160&n.4(1st \ Cir.2004).Afterthepanelgrantedrehearinginthiscaseto X examineamoreelaborateversionofthetreatyargument,theen   banccourtdeterminedthatthemattershouldbeheardbythefull `  court.Twoofthethreepanelmemberssaidthattheywerecontent  \  withthiscourse.Onlyonejudgedissentedfromtheproposalto   hearthecaseenbanc.SeeIgartadelaRosa,407F.3d30. d   ` Notreatyclaim,evenifentertained,wouldpermita `  courttoorderthattheelectoralcollegebeenlargedor   reapportioned.Treatiessometimeshavetheforceofdomestic h law,justlikelegislation;buttheConstitutionisthesupremelaw d oftheland,andneitherastatutenoratreatycanoverridethe  Constitution.Reidv.Covert,354U.S.1,1618(1957)(plurality l opinion);MatterofBurt,737F.2d1477,1484(7thCir.1984); h Plasterv.UnitedStates,720F.2d340,348(4thCir.1983)  (collectingcaselaw).Seealso_ Marbury_ v.Madison,5U.S.(1 p  Cranch.)137,180(1803)("alawrepugnanttotheconstitutionis !l" void").Sothetreatyclaim,originallymadeinsupportof "$ injunctiverelief,isnowrecastbyproponentsasademandfor"a t$& declaration"thattheUnitedStatesisinviolationofitstreaty  &p!( obligationsforfailingto"takesteps"togiveapresidentialvote '#*  tocitizensofPuertoRico. x)$,  ` Thereareahostofproblemswiththetreatyclaim,   includingpersonalstanding,_ redressability_ ,theexistenceofa \ causeofaction,andthemeritsofthetreatyinterpretations X offered.Treatiesaremadebetweenstates(intheinternational   usageofthatterm)andcitizensdonotautomaticallyhavearight `  tosueuponthem. #  3      ׀Thepresentclaimisalsoprobablynot  \  justiciableinthesensethatanyeffectivereliefcouldbe   provided;_  #  4      _ Ԁitisenoughtoletcommonsenseplayuponthe d  conjecturethattheConstitutionwouldbeamendedifonlyafederal `  courtdeclaredthatatreaty'sgeneralitiessorequired.See   Simon,426U.S.at44("unadornedspeculation[astoredress]will h notsufficetoinvokethefederaljudicialpower"). d  ` Norarethemeritsof_ Igarta_ sreadingofthetreaties  atallstraightforward.Thelanguageofeachofthetreaties l invokedisgeneral.Nothinginthemsaysanythingaboutjustwho h shouldbeentitledtovoteforwhom,orthatanentitywiththe  negotiatedrelationshipthattheUnitedStateshaswithPuertoRico  isneverthelessrequiredtoadoptsomedifferentarrangementasto \ governanceorsuffrage.In1951,PuertoRicansthemselvesacceded X totheirpresentCommonwealthstatus,_   #  5      _ Ԁandtheyaretodaydivided   astowhatrelationshiptheywouldpreferonthespectrumfrom `  statehoodtoCommonwealthstatustoindependence.  \   ` Wethinkitunnecessarytoplumbthesequestions,whether   ofpreconditionstosuitorthemeaningofthetreaties,because d  noneofthesetreatiescomprisesdomesticlawoftheUnitedStates `  andsotheirstatusfurnishestheclearestgroundfordenying   declaratoryrelief.Itiswellsettledthatdeclaratoryreliefis h discretionary,Wiltonv.SevenFallsCo.,515U.S.277,287(1995), d butdiscretiondoesnotmeananythingthatajudgefeelslike  doing.Rather, l 8 ` thediscretiontograntdeclaratoryreliefis h tobeexercisedwithgreatcircumspectionwhen > mattersofpublicmomentareinvolved,...  orwhenarequestforreliefthreatenstodrag  afederalcourtprematurelyinto p  constitutionalissuesthatarefreightedwith F ! uncertainty.!l"` x` x   !B# ]IErnst&Youngv.DepositorsEconomicProtectionCorp.,45F.3d530,   535(1stCir.1995). \  ` Itwouldnotbe"circumspection"butpatentimprudenceto X "declare"purportedrightsunderthetreatiesatissueinthis   case.TheUnitedStateshassignednumeroustreatiesoverthe `  years,manycontaininghighlygeneralandramifyingstatements.  \  SomeasnegotiatedbythePresidentaremerelyaspirationalandnot   lawinanysense.Othersmaycompriseinternationalcommitments, d  buttheyarenotdomesticlawunlessCongresshaseitherenacted `  implementingstatutesorthetreatyitselfconveysanintention   thatitbe"selfexecuting"andisratifiedontheseterms.The h lawtothiseffectislongstanding.SeeWhitneyv.Robertson,124 d U.S.190,194(1888);Fosterv._ Neilson_ ,27U.S.(2Pet.)253,314  (1829)(Marshall,C.J.). l  ` Thetreatiesinquestionheredonotadoptanylegal h obligationsbindingasamatterofdomesticlaw.TheUniversal  DeclarationofHumanRightsisprecatory:thatis,itcreates p  _ aspirational_ Ԁgoalsbutnotlegalobligations,evenasbetween !l" states._ Sosa_ v.Alvarez_ Machain_ ,124S.Ct.2739,2767(2004). "$ ThisisalsotrueoftheInterAmericanDemocraticCharter.! #  6      ׀The t$& finalinstrument,theInternationalCovenantonCivilandPolitical  Rights,isaratifiedtreatybutwassubmittedandratifiedonthe \ expressconditionthatitwouldbe"notselfexecuting."138Cong. X Rec.S4781,S4784(dailyed.Apr.2,1992).Indeed,_ Sosa_ usedit   asanexampleofsuchatreaty,saying: `  8 ` Severaltimes,indeed,theSenatehas  \  expresslydeclinedtogivethefederalcourts  2  thetaskofinterpretingandapplying   internationalhumanrightslaw,aswhenits   ratificationoftheInternationalCovenanton d  CivilandPoliticalRightsdeclaredthatthe :  substantiveprovisionsofthedocumentwere `  notselfexecuting.6` x` x T124S.Ct.at2763.   ` Whateverlimitedroomtheremaybeforcourtstosecond > guessthejointpositionofthePresidentandtheSenatethata : treatyisnotselfexecutingandweareprettyskepticalofsuch  asuggestioninlightof"thediscretionoftheLegislativeand B ExecutiveBranchesinmanagingforeignaffairs,"id.itis > certainlynotpresentinacaseinwhichtheSupremeCourthas  expresseditsownunderstandingofaspecifictreatyintheterms F ! blockquotedabove.Indeed,onlyafewpageslater_ Sosa_ repeated: !B# "[_ T]he_ ԀUnitedStatesratifiedtheCovenantontheexpress #% understandingthatitwasnotselfexecutingandsodidnotitself J% ' createobligationsenforceableinthefederalcourts."Id.at &F") 2767. (#+  ` WhenthePresidentnegotiatesaprecatoryagreementora N*%- nonselfexecutingtreaty,andwhenCongressrefusestoadopt +J'/ implementinglegislationforanonselfexecutingtreaty,bothare  performingfunctionsentrustedtothembytheConstitution.U.S. \ Const.art.I,1,810;art.II,23.Itwouldignore,and X undermine,thisconstitutionalallocationoffunctionsfora   federalcourt todeclarethattheUnitedStateswasnevertheless `  "violating"suchatreaty.Insubstance,suchanexercisewould  \  attempttodowhatthePresidentandCongresshavedeclinedtodo,   namely,todeploythetreatyprovisioninanattempttoorder d  domesticarrangementswithintheUnitedStates. `   ` ThisintrusivecoursecouldalsoembarrasstheUnited   Statesintheconductofitsforeignaffairs,whichis"committed h bytheConstitutiontotheexecutiveandlegislative--'the d political'--departmentsofthegovernment."_ Oetjen_ v.Central  LeatherCo.,246U.S.297,302(1918).WhatevertheState l Departmentmightlatersay,suchadeclarationbyafederalcourt h ofasupposed"treatyobligation"couldbetrumpetedaspropaganda  ininternationalbodiesandelsewhere.Thisisalegitimate p  concerninconsideringwhether"discretion"shouldbeexercisedto !l" grantdeclaratoryrelief.# #  7      ׀Ofcourse,nosuchdeclarationwould "$ conferapresidentialvoteonIgarta:itwouldmerelyreinforce t$& thedisturbingviewthatjudgeshavenopropernotionofwhere  theirownauthorityends. \  ` ThecaseforgivingPuertoRicanstherighttovotein X presidentialelectionsisfundamentallyapoliticaloneandmustbe   madethroughpoliticalmeans.Buttherightclaimedcannotbe `  implementedbycourtsunlessPuertoRicobecomesastateoruntil  \  theConstitutionischanged(asithasbeen,atleastfivetimes,   tobroadenthefranchise).U.S.Const.amend.XV(race,color, d  previousservitude);id.amend.XIX(sex);id.amend.XXIII `  (DistrictofColumbia);id.amend.XXIV(paymentofpollorother   tax);id.amend.XXVI(ageeighteenandolder).Itcertainly h shouldnotbe"declared"byafederalcourtonthebasisof d treatiesnoneofwhichwasdesignedtoalterdomesticlawandnone  ofwhichcouldoverridetheConstitution.  l  ` Littleneedbesaidof_ Igarta_ 'srelatedclaimthat h customaryinternationallaw,byitselfandindependentoftreaties,  requiresthathebeallowedtovoteforPresident.Although p  sometimessaidbyenthusiaststobelawlikeotherlaw,customary !l" internationallawisadiffuseandoftenhighlyuncertainbodyof "$ normswhoseforceandenforceabilityvarygreatlyeveninthe t$& internationalsphere;anditsstatusinourdomesticcourtsiseven  &p!( morequalified.See_ Sosa_ ,124S.Ct.at276263,276869. '#*  ` Onlyrecently,in_ Sosa_ ,theSupremeCourtenjoinedgreat x)$, cautioninimportingsuchnormsintodomesticlaw,eveninthe $+t&. contextofafederalstatutegoverningalientortactionsthat  arguablyauthorizedsomedegreeofimportationbyfederalcourts. \ _ Sosa_ refusedtorecognizeasanormofcustomaryinternationallaw X thenotionofprotectionagainstarbitraryarrest.124S.Ct.at   2769.Yettheclaimrejectedin_ Sosa_ wasamodelofprecision `  comparedto_ Igarta_ 'spresentclaim.  \   ` Noseriousargumentexiststhatcustomaryinternational   law,independentofthetreatiesnowinvoked,requiresaparticular d  formofrepresentativegovernment.Practiceamongleading `  democraticnationsshowsadiversityastohowgovernmentsorganize   andstructurethefranchise;inGreatBritain,forexample,neither h theheadofstatenorofgovernmentisdirectlyelectedbythe d publicatlarge.Ifthereexistsaninternationalnormof  democraticgovernment,itisatalevelofgeneralitysohighasto l beunsuitableforimportationintodomesticlaw._ Sosa_ ,124S.Ct. h at2768n.27.   ` Finally,othersupportersof_ Igarta_ 'sclaimsuggestthat p  theUnitedStatesneednot"amendtheConstitution"toresolvethe !l" assertedinfirmityofhavingPuertoRicansclassedascitizensof "$ theUnitedStatesbutunabletovoteforPresident.Forexample, t$& PuertoRicocouldbemadeastateor,alternatively,couldbe  &p!( recognizedasanindependentnation.Grantingthedeclaration,it '#*  isclaimed,wouldencouragetheUnitedStatesto"takesteps" x)$, OY    towardaresolutionevenifitdidnotimmediatelysecureavote  forIgarta. \   ` Thisis,ofcourse,nothingbutspeculation,butit X furtherunderscorestheimproprietyofthejudicialdeclaration   sought.Themainimpactofsuchanabstractdeclaration,ifany, `  wouldbetoservepartisansinapoliticalcampaignastothe  \  choicebetweenstatehood,independence,Commonwealthstatus,or   otheralteredarrangementsbetweenPuertoRicoandtheUnited d  States.ChangestotheConstitutionandthepresentstatusof `  PuertoRicoarenottheprovinceoffederaljudges,norarethey   dictatedbyinternationallaw;thosechangescanonlybeadoptedas h setforthintheConstitutionandlawsoftheUnitedStates. d  ` Affirmed.  @   Concurringanddissentingopinionsfollow.   & ` CAMPBELL,SeniorCircuitJudge,concurring. Ijoinin  ChiefJudge_ Boudin_ 'sexcellentopinionforthemajority,butIalso x notemysubscriptiontoJudge_ Lipez_ 'snarrowerconcurrence.The $t twoarenotinconflict.Themajority'sopinionrecognizesthe   possiblevalidityofJudge_ Lipez_ 'sbeliefthatthecourtherelacks |  jurisdictiontograntdeclaratoryrelief.IhappentothinkJudge ( x  Lipezisright,and,ifso,thatofcourseendsthematter.But $  evenapartfromthecorrectnessofhisapproach,IagreewithChief   Judge_ Boudin_ 'salternativeanalysiswhichleadstothesame ,|  outcome. (    +&,O ` LIPEZ,CircuitJudge , concurringinthejudgment .I  agreewiththemajority'sdenialofrelieftoIgarta.Iwrite x separately,however,becauseIwouldreject_ Igarta_ 'srequestfor $t declaratoryreliefonjurisdictionalgrounds.     I.  |   } ` IamsympathetictotheaspirationsofPuertoRicanswho D   arecitizenresidentsofPuertoRicotoparticipatefullyinthe @  electionofthePresidentandVicePresidentoftheUnitedStates.   Thedissentingjudgespresenttheirlegalpositionsinsupportof H  thoseaspirationspowerfullyandeloquently.Nevertheless, D "[_ f]ederal_ Ԁcourtsarecourtsoflimitedjurisdiction,"_ Kokkonen_ v.  GuardianLifeIns.Co.ofAm.,511U.S.375,377(1994),andthat L limitedjurisdictiondoesnotpermitustodecidetheissuesraised H by_ Igarta_ 'srequestfordeclaratoryrelief.   ` Itmayseemoddtosomethatafederalcourtmightnot P havethepowertoanswerimportantlegalquestionsinvolvingthe L interactionbetweentheConstitution,internationallaw,andthe   rightsofAmericancitizens.But,asIwillexplainbelow,one T!" cannotsimplygotofederalcourtandgetananswertoalegal #P$ question.Beforeafederalcourtcanresolvetheissuesbeforeit, $& thecourtmustfirstsatisfyitselfthat,iftheplaintiff X&!( ultimatelywon,thedecisionwouldprobablyresultinaredressof (T#* theplaintiff'sgrievance.Ifajudicialvictorywouldprobably )%, notproducesucharesult,thefederalcourthasnopowerto \+&. addressthemeritsoftheissuesunderlyingthedispute.Inmost  casesredressabilityisnotaproblem.Inthiscase,however, \ redressabilityisaninsuperableproblem. X  ` Asthemajorityablyexplains,thereareonlytwomethods   underourConstitutionbywhichaterritorycanreceiveelectoral `  votes:throughadmissionasastate,seeU.S.Const.art.IV,3,  \  cl.1,orbyspecialamendment,seeid.amend.XXIII.Forall   practicalpurposes,onlyCongresscanperformeitherofthese d  actions,andwhethertodosoisinCongress'ssolediscretion.- #  8      ׀ `  Thus,thecriticaljurisdictionalquestionreducestowhethera   courtcandeclareCongress'sfailuretoinitiateeitherofthese h processestobeaviolationofinternationallawor,asJudge d Torruellaputsit,whetheracourtcanissueadeclaratoryjudgment  that"theUnitedStateshastakennostepstomeetitsobligations l underthe_ ICCPR_ Ԁandcustomaryinternationallawtograntequal h votingrightstoallcitizensintheelectionofthePresidentand  VicePresidentoftheUnitedStates.XVXX XV"# XVXXXV#Postat88(Torruella,J., p  dissenting).XVXX XV !l"  ` Inmyview,theanswertothisjurisdictionalquestion "$ doesnotturnontheprecisecontentsoftheparticularagreements t$& atissue;whethertheagreementsarebindingormerely"precatory";  &p!( ,O ,e ,  whethertheyhavebeenratifiedbytheSenate;whethertheyare e selfexecuting;orevenwhethertherelevantinternationallegal  normsderivefromagreementsatall,asopposedtocustomarylaw. X Nordoestheanswerturnonthediscretionarynatureofa i  declaratoryjudgment.Evenifthosefactorswereremoved,   _ Igarta_ 'srequestfordeclaratoryreliefwouldstillfacean  \  insuperableobstacle:welackjurisdictiontodecidehis m  internationallawclaimbecausehisgrievanceisnotjudicially   redressable.SeeSteelCo.v.CitizensforaBetter_ Env't_ ,523 `  U.S.83,101(1998)(courtmustaddressArticleIIIjurisdictional q  questionsbeforeaddressingmerits,because"[_ h]ypothetical_   jurisdictionproducesnothingmorethanahypotheticaljudgment-- d whichcomestothesamethingasanadvisoryopinion"). u Unavoidably,_ Igarta_ 'srequestforadeclaratoryjudgmentrequires ! unsupportablespeculationaboutthepossibilityofaConstitutional h amendmentortheadmissionofPuertoRicoasastate.Forthis y reasonalone,Iconcludethatwedonothavejurisdictionoverhis %  requestfordeclaratoryrelief.  l"   II.  }"$ : ` UnderArticleIIIoftheConstitution,"[_ t]he_ Ԁjudicial E$& Powershallextend"to"Cases"and"Controversies."U.S.Const. %!( art.III,2,cl.1.TheSupremeCourthasinterpretedthis"case '8#* orcontroversy"requirementtomean,amongotherthings,that I)$, federalcourtsdonotissueadvisoryopinions.Inparticular,a *&. federalcourtmayonlyexercisejurisdictionoveranactionifit e is"'likely,'asopposedtomerely'speculative,'thattheinjury  willbe'redressedbyafavorabledecision.'"_ Lujan_ v.Defenders X ofWildlife,504U.S.555,561(1992)(quoting# XVXXXVm#Simonv.E.Ky. i  WelfareRightsOrg.,426U.S.26,38,43(1976)).XVXX XVIftheplaintiff   cannotshowthathisinjury"islikelytoberedressedbya  \  favorabledecision,"thefederalcourt's"exerciseofitspower m  # XVXXXV%#...XVXX XVԀwouldbegratuitousandthusinconsistentwiththeArt.III   limitation."# XVXXXV5#Simon,426U.S.at38.Thislimitationapplieswith `  undiminishedforcetoactionsfordeclaratoryjudgment.See q  _ Calderon_ v._ Ashmus_ ,523U.S.740,745(1998)("[_ W]e_ Ԁmustfirst  addresswhetherthisactionforadeclaratoryjudgmentisthesort d of'ArticleIII''caseorcontroversy'towhichfederalcourtsare u limited.");AetnaLifeIns.Co.v._ Haworth_ ,300U.S.227,240 ! (1937)(TheDeclaratoryJudgmentAct"isoperativeonlyinrespect h tocontroversieswhicharesuchintheconstitutionalsense."). y XVXX XV ` Thisisnotacasewhereaplaintiffclaimsinjuryfrom %  anallegedlyunconstitutionalactofCongress.Rather,Igarta  l" claimsinjuryfromCongress'sinactioninthefaceofcertain }"$ internationalagreements:itsfailuretoeitheradmitPuertoRico )$& asastateortoproposeaConstitutionalamendmentallocating %p!( electorstoPuertoRico._ . #  9      _ ԀSinceitisbeyonddisputethatwecould '#* notorderCongresstodoeitherofthosethings,JudgeTorruella e saysthatweshouldissueadeclaratoryjudgmentthatCongresshas  notfulfilleditsdutiesunderinternationalagreements.Judge X TorruellathensaysthatCongress,chastenedbythisdeclaration, i  wouldvoluntarilychoosetoactpresumablyeitherbyadmitting   PuertoRicoasastateorproposinganamendmentsimilartothe  \  Twentythird.InJudge_ Torruella_ 'sview,"# XVXXXV#itissubstantially m  likelythatadeclarationbythisCourtthattheUnitedStatesis   inviolationofinternationallawwillresultinsomeformof `  relieftotheUnitedStatescitizenswhoresideinPuertoRico.XVXX XV" q  Postat80(# XVXXXV-#Torruella,J.,dissenting)XVXX XV.   ` Respectfully,thebasisforthisspeculationabout d CongressinitiatingtheprocessofConstitutionalamendmentor u invokingtheConstitutionalprocessfortheadmissionofanew ! stateisunexplained.Wehavealreadywarnedaboutthehazardsof h suchspeculationwhenonlystatutorychangesbyastatelegislature y wereatstake.In_ Biszko_ v._ RIHT_ ԀFinancialCorp.,758F.2d769 %  (1stCir.1985),plaintiffschallengedaRhodeIslandstatutethat e arguablycreatedmarketconditionsunderwhichplaintiffscouldnot  receivefullmarketvaluefortheirsharesinaRhodeIslandbank./ #  10      ׀ X Theyarguedthattheirsuitwas_ redressable_ Ԁbecauseifthefederal i  courtinvalidatedthestatute,"theRhodeIslandlegislaturewould   soonbemoved,_//sua_//Ԁ_//sponte_//orbythepersuasiveeffortsofnon-New  \  Englandbanks,topassastatutepermitting[amorecompetitive m  market]."Id.at773.Wedescribedsuchspeculationconcerning"a   benefitthat[plaintiffs]mightgainweretheRhodeIsland `  legislaturetoreactinacertainwaytoadecisionbythiscourt" q  as"notmerelyspeculative"but"positivelychimerical."Id.0@ #  11      ׀   ` Ifalegislativebodywouldbewithinitsrightsto d ignorethecourt'sdecision,andtheplaintiffcannotconvincethe u courtthatitis"'likely,'asopposedtomerely'speculative,'" ! _//Lujan_//,504U.S.at561,thatthelegislaturewillreactintheway h thathehopes,theredressabilityrequirementhasnotbeenmet. y Cf.Chicago&S.AirLines,Inc.v.WatermanS.S.Corp.,333U.S. %  103,113(1948)("[_//I]f_//ԀthePresidentmaycompletelydisregardthe  l" judgmentofthecourt,itwouldbeonlybecauseitisonethe e courtswerenotauthorizedtorender.Judgments,withinthepowers  vestedincourtsbytheJudiciaryArticleoftheConstitution,may X notlawfullyberevised,overturnedorrefusedfaithandcreditby i  anotherDepartmentofGovernment.").ThecasesthatJudge   Torruellacitesforthecontraryproposition(thatCongresswould  \  be"substantiallylikely"toredress_ Igarta_ 'sgrievanceinlight m  ofajudicialdeclaration)areeasilydistinguishableandactually   revealwhytheredressabilityrequirementpreventsdeclaratory `  reliefhere. q   ` JudgeTorruellareliesonUtahv.Evans,536U.S.452  (2002),adisputeultimatelystemmingfromtheCensusBureau's d methodofcalculatingpopulationinthe2000census.TheBureau u usedastatisticalmethodthatcalculatedthepopulationofUtahas ! somewhatlower,relativetothepopulationofNorthCarolina,than h iftheBureauhadnotusedthatmethod.Seeid.at45758. y Pursuanttostatute,theBureau'sfinalreportwasformally %  transmittedtoCongress,andtheClerkoftheHouseof  l" Representativesthentransmittedtoeachstategovernor"'a }"$ certificateofthenumberofRepresentativestowhich[that]State )$& [was]entitled.'"Id.at461(quoting2U.S.C.2a(b)).Dueto %p!( thestatisticalmethodthattheBureauused,Utahreceivedoneless '#* representative,andNorthCarolinaonemorerepresentative,thanif -)$, theBureauhadnotusedthatmethod.Id.at458.Afterreceiving *t&. theresults,Utahsuedthegovernment,arguingthattheBureau's e statisticalmethodviolatedanothercensusrelatedstatute,and  soughtaninjunctionorderingtheBureautoreissueitsreportwith X differentresults.Id.at459. i   ` NorthCarolinaintervened,arguingthatthecasewasnot   justiciablebecausethereliefsoughtwouldnotredressUtah's  \  grievance.AlthoughNorthCarolina"[did]notdenythatthecourts m  [could]orderthe[Bureau]torecalculatethenumbersandto   _ recertify_ Ԁtheofficialcensusresult,"itreasonedthat"Utah `  _//suffer[ed_//],notsimplyfromthelackofapropercensus'report'(a q  document),butmoreimportantlyfromthelackoftheadditional  congressionalRepresentativetowhichNorthCarolinabelieves d itselfentitledasaconsequenceofthefilingofthatdocument." u Id.at461.Inotherwords,althoughthecourtcouldorderanew ! censusreportasUtahrequested,anewreportwouldnotresultin h UtahgainingaRepresentative.Thatoutcomewoulddependentirely y onwhetherCongress,actinginitsunbridleddiscretion,would %  choosetoreapportion,orjustignorethereport.  l"  ` TheCourtconcludedthattheinjurycitedbyUtahwas }"$ _//redressable_//: )$& 8 ` [_//W]e_//ԀbelieveitlikelythatUtah'svictory %p!( herewouldbringabouttheultimaterelief &F") thatUtahseeks.Victorywouldmeana '#* declarationleading,oraninjunction W(#+ requiring,theSecretarytosubstituteanew -)$, "report"fortheoldone.Shouldthenew *%- reportcontainadifferentconclusionabout *t&. therelativepopulationsofNorthCarolinaand +J'/ Utah,therelevantcalculationsandconsequent e apportionment-relatedstepswouldbepurely ; mechanical;andseveralmonthswouldremain  priortothefirstpost-2000census  congressionalelection.Underthese X circumstances,itwouldseem# XVXXXV#...XVXX XV . "substantiallylikelythatthePresidentand i  otherexecutiveandcongressionalofficials ?  wouldabidebyanauthoritativeinterpretation   ofthecensusstatute# XVXXXV #...XVXX XVԀ."  ` x` x `Id.at46364(quotingFranklinv.Massachusetts,505U.S.788,803  2  (1992)(opinionofO'Connor,J.)).TwopointsaboutEvansbear C  emphasis.First,compliancewiththeactualcourtorderor   declarationrelatingtotheneedforanewcensusreport"wouldbe 6 purelymechanical."536U.S.at463.Second,whileultimate G redressofUtah'sgrievancewouldrequirediscretionaryactionby  electedofficials,thataction_ recertifying_ Ԁthetotalnumberof : Representativesfortwostateswasofapiecewithaprocessso K regularandcommonplacethatCongresshas,inordinary  circumstances,delegateditbystatutetotheClerkoftheHouse._ 1 #  12      _ Ԁ > Here,bycontrast,theCongressionalactionenvisioned(admitting O astateorinitiatingtheprocessofConstitutionalamendment)is !  exceptional,lengthy,complex,andhighlyuncertain.Consequently, !B# howCongresswouldreacttoadeclarationisconsiderablymore e speculativeherethaninEvans.2 #  13          ` AsecondcasecitedbyJudgeTorruella,_ Juda_ v.United X States,13Cl.Ct.667(1987),relatesmoredirectlyto i  internationalagreements._ Juda_ concernedthestatusofthe   MarshallIslands.AfterWorldWarII,theUnitedStatesentered  \  intoanagreementwiththeUnitedNations(UN)toadministerthe m  MarshallIslandsasaUNtrusteeship,inanarrangementdesignedto   betemporary.Inthe1970s,theUnitedStatesdecidedtoterminate `  thetrusteeshipandoffertheterritoryacompactoffree q  association.Thecompactagreementwassubmittedtoaplebiscite,  andwasresoundinglyapproved.Congressthenenacted,andthe d Presidentsigned,legislationformallyadoptingthecompact.After u thePresidentissuedanexecutiveorderimplementingthecompact, ! theUNTrusteeshipCouncildeterminedthatthetrusteeshiphad h terminated.Seeid.at67176. y  ` Someyearslater,MarshallIslanderplaintiffsfileda %  claimagainsttheUnitedStatesundertheTuckerAct,28U.S.C.  l" 1491,3 #  14      ׀whichhadundisputedlyappliedtotheIslandswhilethey }"$ werestillunderthetrusteeship.TheUnitedStatesargued, )$& however,thatthecompactagreementwithdrewthegovernment's e waiverofsovereignimmunity.See13Cl.Ct.at677.The  plaintiffsrespondedthat,undertherulesapplicabletoUN X trusteeships,thetrusteeshiphadnotbeenvalidlyterminated,and i  thereforethecompactwhichwithdrewthegovernment'sconsentto   suitnevertookeffect.Seeid.at678.  \   ` Thecourtrejectedtheplaintiffs'argumentthatfailure m  toterminatethetrusteeshipproperlymeantthatthecompact(and   withitthewithdrawalofconsenttosuit)hadnevertakeneffect. `  Rather,thecourtfoundthatwhether"theTrusteeshipAgreementhas q  notbeenterminateddejuredoesnotresolvetheissueofwhether  theCompact# XVXXXV@#...XVXX XVԀisineffect."Id.at682.Ultimately,the d courtconcludedthatthecompactdidtakeeffect,andtherefore u thattheUnitedStateshadwithdrawnitsconsenttobesued.See ! id.at683,690.Thus,itdismissedthecomplaint.Id.at690. h  ` Nevertheless,inalengthydictum,thecourtexplained y thatthetrusteeshiphadinfactnotbeenproperlyterminated.The %  courtheldthatthetrusteeshipcouldnotbeformallyterminated  l" untiltheUNSecurityCouncilsovoted.Seeid.at67882.Some }"$ timeafterthe_ Juda_ decisionissued,thegovernmenttookthe )$& court'sadviceandformallyaskedtheSecurityCounciltoterminate %p!( thetrusteeship,whichitdid.# XVXXXV#SeeUnitedNationsSecurityCouncil '#*  Resolution683(Dec.22,1990).Thatdictum,andthegovernment's -)$, decisiontotakethecourt'sadvice,istheprecedentuponwhich e XVXX XVJudgeTorruella# XVXXXV#Ԁrelies.XVXX XV    ` Yetthe_ Juda_ courtdidnot"declare"anythingit X dismissedtheplaintiffs'complaint,didnotevenmentiona i  declaratoryjudgment,andiscitedbyJudgeTorruellaonlyfora   dictum.Moreimportantly,in_ Juda_ therewasnodisputethatboth  \  CongressandthePresidentintendedtoterminatethetrusteeship; m  indeed,byenactingthecompactandissuinganexecutiveorder   implementingit,thepoliticalbranchesthoughttheyhaddone `  exactlythat._ Juda_ notedthattheseactionsdidnothavetheir q  intendedeffectduetoatechnicalmisunderstandingofUN  procedures,andexplainedhowtheelectedbranchescouldproperly d achievewhattheyhadalreadysoughttodo.Thelikelihoodthat u CongressandthePresidentwouldfollowthecourt'sadvicewasnot ! just"substantial,"itwasanearcertainty.Thereisnothing h remotelyapproachingsuchcertaintyhere._//4 #  15      _// y   III.  e  ` Thereisnoprecedentforissuingadeclaratoryjudgment - inthecircumstancesofthiscase,andforgoodreason.A t declaratoryjudgment"isaproceduraldevicethatprovidesanew,   noncoerciveremedy# XVXXXV6#...XVXX XVԀincasesinvolvinganactualcontroversy 1  thathasnotreachedthestageatwhicheitherpartymayseeka  x  coerciveremedy# XVXXXVZ#...XVXX XVԀandincasesinwhichapartywhocouldsue $  forcoercivereliefhasnotyetdoneso."B.BraunMed.,Inc.v. 5  AbbottLabs.,124F.3d1419,1428(Fed.Cir.1997)(emphasis |  added).Here,however,nocoerciveremedywouldeverbeavailable. ( Congresswouldbeperfectlywithinitsrightstoignorewhatevera 9 federalcourtsaid.Thecourt'sdeclaratoryjudgmentwouldbe,in  essence,anadvisoryopinion. ,  ` AstheSupremeCourtexplainedinadifferentcontext: = 8 ` Inallcivillitigation,thejudicialdecree  isnottheendbutthemeans.Attheendof Z therainbowliesnotajudgment,butsome 0 action(orcessationofaction)bythe k defendantthatthejudgmentproduces--the A  paymentofdamages,orsomespecific  ! performance,ortheterminationofsome  " conduct.Redressissoughtthroughthecourt, !^# butfromthedefendant.Thisisnolesstrue "4$ ofadeclaratoryjudgmentsuitthanofany o# % otheraction.Therealvalueofthejudicial e pronouncement--whatmakesitaproper ; judicialresolutionofa"caseorcontroversy"  ratherthananadvisoryopinion--isinthe  settlingofsomedisputewhichaffectsthe X behaviorofthedefendanttowardsthe . plaintiff.i ` x` x _//Hewitt_//v.Helms,482U.S.755,761(1987)(describingtestfor   "prevailingparty"under42U.S.C.1988).Herethereisonly  \  hopeandspeculationthatCongress,inresponsetoadeclaratory m  judgmentaboutaviolationofinternationallaw,wouldinvoke   cumbersomeandcontentiousprocessesrelatingtoConstitutional `  amendmentsortheadmissionofanewstatetoeventuallygive q  citizenresidentsofPuertoRicotherighttovoteforPresident  andVicePresident.Suchhopeandspeculationdoesnotsatisfythe d "caseorcontroversy"requirementofArticleIII.Onthatbasis u alone,IwoulddeclinetoexercisejurisdictionoverIgarta's ! requestfordeclaratoryrelief.# XVXXXVC#  h 8xVxXXdXXd8y+  ` TORRUELLA,CircuitJudge(dissenting). z #  16      ׀Initshasteto e "put[plaintiffsappellants']constitutionalclaimfullyatrest,"_//| #  17      _// - maj.op.at6,themajorityhaschosentooverlooktheissues t actuallybeforethisenbanccourtasframedbytheorderofthe   rehearingpanel,see_//Igarta_//ԀdelaRosav.UnitedStates,404F.3d 1  1(1stCir.2005)(ordergrantingpanelrehearing),whichpanelthe  x  enbanccourtsuppressed,butwhoseorderwasadoptedas $  establishingtheparametersoftheissuestobedecidedbytheen 5  banccourt.See_//Igarta_//ԀdelaRosav.UnitedStates,407F.3d30, |  31(1stCir.2005)(convertingtoenbancreviewpanelrehearingin ( which"theparties[are]toaddresstwoissues:first,the 9 plaintiffs'claimthattheUnitedStateswasindefaultofits  treatyobligationsand,second,theavailabilityofdeclaratory , judgmentconcerningthegovernment'scompliancewithanysuch = obligations.").Itistheseissuesthatthepartieswereaskedto e brief.Insteadthemajorityhassidetrackedthisappealintoadead  endthatisnolongerbeforeus:PuertoRico'slackofelectoral X collegerepresentation,seeU.S.Const.art.II,1,cl.2,and i  ourlackofauthoritytoorderanyconstitutionalchangetosuch   statusbyreasonofthatconstitutionalimpediment.  \   ` Indoingso,themajorityfailstogiveanyweighttothe m  fundamentalnatureoftherighttovote,andthelegalconsequences   ofthiscardinalprincipal.Underthecombinedguiseofalleged `  politicalquestiondoctrine,itsadmitteddesiretoavoid q  "embarrassment"totheUnitedStates,anditspiouslecturingon  whatitdeemstobethenatureofthejudicialfunction,the d majorityseekstoavoidwhatIbelieveisitsparamountdutyover u andabovethesestatedgoals:todojusticetothecivilrightsof ! thefourmillionUnitedStatescitizenswhoresideinPuertoRico. h Themajoritylabelsthisdutywith_//despect_//Ԁas"rhetoric"and y "intuitivevalues."Maj.op.at3.Ibegtodiffer,andso,I %  suspect,doaconsiderablenumberofthosefourmillionU.S.  l" citizenswho,lackinganypoliticalrecourse,looktothecourtsof }"$ theUnitedStatesforsuccorbecausetheyarewithoutanyother )$& avenueofrelief.SeeUnitedStatesv._//Carolene_//ԀProds.Co.,304 %p!( U.S.144,152n.4(1938)("[_//P]rejudice_//Ԁagainstdiscreteandinsular '#* minoritiesmaybeaspecialcondition,whichtendsseriouslyto -)$, curtailtheoperationofthosepoliticalprocessesordinarilytobe *t&. reliedupontoprotectminoritiesand...maycallfor e correspondinglymoresearchingjudicialinquiry.").} #  18         ` Consideringthatjusticeandequityarethehandmaidens X ofthelaw,Ibelieveitisthedutyofthiscourttoexerciseits i  equitablepowerundertheDeclaratoryJudgmentAct,28U.S.C.   2201(a),_//~j #  19      _//Ԁinitsdecisionoftheissuesthatareproperlybefore  \  theenbanccourt,andtodeclarethattheUnitedStateshasfailed m  totakeanystepstomeetobligationsthatarecognizableasthe   supremelawoftheland6  #  20      ׀regardingplaintiffsappellants'voting `  rights."Thisisoftheveryessenceofjudicialduty."_//Marbury_// q  v.Madison,5U.S.(1Cranch)137,178(1803).   ` BecauseIbelievethatthemajorityfailstomeetthis d duty,Irespectfullydissent. u @tt) I.  e  A.Howdidwecometothisstateofaffairs?  -  ` OnJuly25,1898,intheclosingdaysoftheSpanish  AmericanWar,theUnitedStatesinvaded_// #  21      _//ԀPuertoRico.Atthat  < pointintimetheinhabitantsofPuertoRicohadfullrightsas e Spanishcitizens.Thisincludedtherighttoelectsixteen  deputiesandthreesenators,withfullvotingrights,tothe X SpanishCortes(Parliament).@ #  22      ׀XVXX XVFernando_//Bayr;n_//ԀToro,_//Elecciones_//Ԁy i  _//partidos_//ԀdePuertoRico108(2003).# XVXXXV*#XVXX XVԀFurthermore,PuertoRicanshad   recentlybeengrantedahighmeasureofselfgovernment.See  \  generallyAutonomicCharterof1897,reproducedat,Documentson m  theConstitutionalRelationshipofPuertoRicoandtheUnited   States2246(MarcosRamirez_//Lavandero_//,ed.,1948). `   ` AllthiscametonaughtwiththesigningoftheTreatyof q  ParisonDecember10,1898,whichofficiallyconcludedthis  "splendidlittlewar" #  23      ׀andendedfourhundredyearsofSpanish d colonialrule.SeeTreatyofPeacebetweentheUnitedStatesof e AmericaandtheKingdomofSpain,Dec.10,1898,U.S.Spain,30  Stat.1754.Thuscommenced,initsplace,anewperiodof X colonialismwhichhassofarlastedonehundredandsevenyears.f #  24      ׀ i  NotwithstandingPuertoRicans'lossofthesemajorpoliticalgrants   fromSpain,thetransitiontoUnitedStatessovereigntywaslargely  \  seamless._// #  25      _//ԀThiswasatleastpartiallyduetothefactthat m  Spanishrulehadbeenlessthankind,_//  #  26      _//Ԁbutmoreimportantly,   becauseoftheprospectofjoiningademocraticnationthat `  promisedthePuertoRicanpeoplethatithadcometo"bestowupon q  [PuertoRicans]theimmunitiesandblessingsof[the]liberal  institutionsofourgovernment."LetterofNelsonMiles,Major d GeneralCommandingtheU.S.ArmytotheInhabitantsofPortoRico u (Nov.5,1898)inAnnualReportsoftheWarDepartmentforthe ! FiscalYearEndedJune30,19001920(1902).SeegenerallyBailey h W._//Diffie_//Ԁ&Justine_//Whitfield_//Ԁ_//Diffie_//,PortoRico:ABrokenPledge y (1931). %   ` Infact,theTreatyofParislefttofutureactionby e Congresswhatshouldbe"[_//t]he_//Ԁcivilrightsandpoliticalstatusof  thenativeinhabitantsoftheterritories...cededtotheUnited X States".TreatyofPeace,art.IX,para.2,30Stat.1754,1759. i  Thus,forthefirsttimeinAmericanhistory,theUnitedStates   acquiredterritorywithoutipsofactograntingitsinhabitants  \  citizenship,_// #  27      _//Ԁandtherefore,alsocontrarytoitsfoundinghistory, m  theUnitedStatesbecameacolonialnation.SeeJuliusWilliam   Pratt,America'sColonialExperiment68(1950).Immediatelyafter `  theinvasion,PuertoRicosettledintoamilitarygovernmentthat q  lasteduntil1900,whenCongressenactedthesocalled_//Foraker_//ԀAct.  _//Foraker_//ԀAct,ch.191,31Stat.77(1900)(codifiedasamendedin d scatteredsectionsof48U.S.C.).Thisstatuteestablishedacivil u governmentcomposedalmosttotallyofofficialsappointedbythe ! President.Alocallegislaturewasprovided,butonlyitslower h  housewaselectedbyPuertoRicanresidents.The_//Foraker_//ԀAct y declaredtheseresidentstobe"citizensofPortoRico."_// #  28      _//Ԁ_//Foraker_// e  Act7("[_//A]ll_//Ԁinhabitantscontinuingtoreside[inPuertoRico]  whowereSpanishsubjectsontheeleventhdayofApril,eighteen X hundredandninetynine,andthenresidedinPortoRico,andtheir i  childrenbornsubsequentthereto,shallbedeemedandheldtobe   citizensofPortoRico,andassuchentitledtotheprotectionof  \  theUnitedStates....")Assuch,theybecame"nationals"of m  theUnitedStates._//  #  29      _//ԀAlmostimmediatelyafterthe_//Foraker_//ԀActwent   intoeffect,achallengewasmadetoitsprovisionsallowingthe `  impositionofdutiesongoodsimportedintoPuertoRicofromthe q  UnitedStates.Itwasclaimedthatthistaxwascontrarytothe  UniformityClauseofArticleI,Section8oftheConstitution. d U.S.Const.,art.I,8,cl.1("allDuties,Imposts,andExcises e shallbeuniformthroughouttheUnitedStates").  Ѐ ` Inthecourseofrulinguponthisissue,theSupreme X Court,in1901,decidedtheInsularCases, #  30      ׀whereinitsanctioned i  PuertoRico'scolonialstatusad_ perpetuam_ .Thereisnoquestion   thattheInsularCasesareonparwiththeCourt'sinfamous  \  decisionin_ Plessy_ v.Fergusoninlicencingthedowngradingofthe m  rightsofdiscreteminoritieswithinthepoliticalhegemonyofthe   UnitedStates.See_ Plessy_ v.Ferguson,163U.S.537(1896) `  (holdingthatitwasnotaviolationoftheEqualProtectionClause q  forastatelawtosegregatewhiteandcoloredpeopleinpublic  facilitiesprovided"equal"alternativeswereprovidedforeach d race);seealsoRubinFrancisWeston,RacisminU.S.Imperialism: u TheInfluenceofRacialAssumptionsonAmericanForeignPolicy, ! 1893194615(1972)("Thosewhoadvocatedoverseasexpansionfaced h thisdilemma:Whatkindofrelationshipwouldthenewpeopleshave y tothebodypolitic?Wasittobetherelationshipofthe %  Reconstructionperiod,anattemptatpoliticalequalityfor  l" dissimilarraces,orwasittobetheSouthern }"$ "counterrevolutionary"pointofviewwhichdeniedthebasic )$& Americanconstitutionalrightstopeopleofcolor?Theactionsof e thefederalgovernmentduringtheimperialperiodandtherelation  oftheNegrotoastatusofsecondclasscitizenshipindicatedthat X theSouthernpointofviewwouldprevail.Theracismwhichcaused i  therelegationoftheNegrotoastatusofinferioritywastobe   appliedtotheoverseaspossessionsoftheUnitedStates.")  \   ` TheInsularCases,wouldtodaybelabeledblatant m  "judicialactivism."_// #  31      ׀See,e.g.,KeenanD.Kmiec_//,TheOriginand   CurrentMeaningsof"JudicialActivism",Comment,92Cal.L.Rev. `  1441,146376(2004)(describingjudicialpracticespurportedtobe q  indicativeofjudicialactivism).Theyareanchoredontheoriesof  dubiouslegalorhistoricalvalidity,contrivedbyacademics d interestedinpromotinganexpansionistagenda._//  #  32      _//ԀThesetheories u inturnprovidedaplatformthatallowedareceptivebareplurality e ofJustices_// #  33      _//ԀtoreacharesultunprecedentedinAmerican  jurisprudenceandunsupportedbythetextoftheConstitution.See X generallyJamesE.Kerr,TheInsularCases:TheRoleofthe i  JudiciaryinAmericanExpansionism(1982).    ` Infact,whatprecedentexistedwascontrarytothe  \  premiseunderlyingtheInsularCases,forin_//Dred_//ԀScott,Chief m  Justice_//Taney_//Ԁhadconcluded:   8 ` Thereiscertainlynopowergivenbythe `  ConstitutiontotheFederalGovernmentto 6 establishormaintaincoloniesborderingon q  theUnitedStatesoratadistance,tobe G ruledandgovernedatitsownpleasure....  [_//N]o_//ԀpowerisgiventoacquireaTerritoryto  beheldandgovernedpermanentlyinthat d character.:` x` x _//Dred_//ԀScottv.Sanford,60U.S.(19How.)at446. K  ` Thisconclusion,however,presentednoobstacleto  JusticeBrown,whowrotetheopinionoftheCourtin_//Downes_//v. > _//Bidwell_//,theleadingInsularCase: O 8 ` Wearealsoofopinionthatthepowerto ! acquireterritoriesbytreatyimplies,not  l" onlythepowertogovernsuchterritory,but e toprescribeuponwhattermstheUnitedStates ; willreceiveitsinhabitants,andwhattheir  statusshallbeinwhatChiefJusticeMarshall  termedthe"AmericanEmpire."X` x` x _//Downes_//,182U.S.at279. i   ` JusticeBrowngoesontosay,inlanguagethatistinged   by_//Plessy_//likeviews:  \  8 ` Itisobviousthatintheannexationof m  outlyinganddistantpossessionsgrave C  questionswillarisefromdifferencesofrace,   habits,lawsandcustomsofthepeople...   whichmayrequireactiononthepartof `  Congressthatwouldbequiteunnecessaryin 6 theannexationofcontiguousterritory q  inhabitedonlybypeopleofthesamerace,or G byscatteredbodiesofnativeIndians.` x` x Id.at282.Heconcludedthat:/ d 8 ` Afalsestepatthistimemightbefatalto u whatChiefJusticeMarshallcalledthe K AmericanEmpire....Ifthosepossessions ! areinhabitedbyalienraces,differingfrom  usinreligion,customs,laws,methodsof h taxation,andmodesofthought,the > administrationofgovernmentandjustice, y accordingtoAngloSaxonprinciples,mayfora O timebeimpossible;andthequestionatonce %  ariseswhetherlargeconcessionsoughtnotto ! bemadeforatime,thatultimatelyourown  l" theoriesmaybecarriedout....We !B# declinetoholdthatthereisanythinginthe }"$ Constitutiontoforbidsuchaction. @ Weare S#% thereforeoftheopinionthattheIslandof )$& PortoRicoisaterritoryappurtenantand $ ' belongingtotheUnitedStates,butnotapart %p!( oftheUnitedStateswithintherevenue &F") clausesoftheConstitution....'#*` x` x  Id.at28687. -)$,  ` JusticeWhite'sconcurrencein_//Downes_//providedthe e  centralsupportfortheseminal"unincorporatedterritory"doctrine  forwhichtheInsularCaseshavebecomeknown.Thisdoctrine X statesthatinthecaseofunincorporatedterritoriesthatis, i  thoseforwhich,atthetimeofacquisition,theUnitedStatesdid   notexpressanintentionofincorporatingintotheUniononly  \  thosepartsoftheConstitutiondealingwith"fundamental"rights m  apply.See_//Coudert_//,supra,note32,at832(relatinga   conversationwithJusticeWhiteinwhichitwas"evidentthathe `  wasmuchpreoccupiedbythedangerofracialandsocialquestions q  ofaveryperplexingcharacterandthathewasquiteasdesirousas  JusticeBrownthatCongressshouldhaveaveryfreehandindealing d withthenewsubjectpopulations"). u  ` ChiefJusticeFuller'sdissent,whichwasjoinedby ! JusticesHarlan,Brewerand_//Peckham_//,andthusgatheredthemost h votes,followedastrictconstructionoftheConstitution.It y rejectedtheplurality'sconclusionasinconsistentwiththe %  Constitution,becauseit  l" 8 ` assumesthattheConstitutioncreateda }"$ governmentempoweredtoacquirecountries S#% throughouttheworld,tobegovernedby )$& differentrulesthanthoseobtaininginthe $ ' originalstatesandterritories,and %p!( substitutesforthepresentsystemof &F") republicangovernmentasystemofdomination '#* overdistantprovincesintheexerciseof W(#+ unrestrictedpower.-)$,` x` x _//Downes_//,182U.S.at373(Fuller,C.J.,dissenting). *t&. = ` JusticeHarlan'sdissentwasequallyforcefulinpointing e outthat: `   8 ` StilllessisittruethatCongresscandeal X withnewterritoriesjustasothernations C havedoneormaydowiththeirnewterritories  . ....Monarchicalanddespoticgovernments, ~  unrestrainedbywrittenconstitutions,maydo i  withnewlyacquiredterritorieswhatthis T   governmentmaynotdoconsistentlywithour ?   fundamentallaw.Tosayotherwiseisto *  concedethatCongressmay,byactiontaken   outsideoftheConstitution,engraftuponour   republicaninstitutionsacolonialsystemsuch   asexistsundermonarchicalgovernments. q  Surelysucharesultwasnevercontemplatedby \ thefathersoftheConstitution....The G ideathatthiscountrymayacquireterritories 2 anywhereupontheearth,byconquestor  treaty,andholdthemasmerecoloniesor m provinces,--thepeopleinhabitingthemto X enjoyonlysuchrightsasCongresschoosesto C accordtothem,--iswhollyinconsistentwith . thespiritandgenius,aswellaswiththe  words,oftheConstitution.` x` x Id.at380.JusticeHarlanwentontosay,inparttoanswerthe u racialovertonesoftheplurality,that: ! 8 ` Whetheraparticularracewillorwillnot 2  assimilatewithourpeople,andwhetherthey !  canorcannotwithsafetytoourinstitutions !y! bebroughtwithintheoperationofthe "O" Constitution,isamattertobethoughtof #%# whenitisproposedtoacquiretheirterritory `$$ bytreaty.Amistakeintheacquisitionof 6% % territory,althoughsuchacquisitionseemedat  &!& thetimetobenecessary,cannotbemadethe &}"' groundforviolatingtheConstitutionor 'S#( refusingtogivefulleffecttoits ()$) provisions.TheConstitutionisnottobe d)$* obeyedordisobeyedasthecircumstancesofa :*%+ particularcrisisinourhistorymaysuggest +&, theoneortheothercoursetobepursued.. +'- ..TheConstitutionissupremeoverevery e footofterritory,whereversituated,under ; thejurisdictionoftheUnitedStates,andits  fulloperationcannotbestayedbyanybranch  ofthegovernmentinordertomeetwhatsome X maysupposetobeextraordinaryemergencies. . IftheConstitutionisinforceinany i  territory,itisinforcethereforevery ?  purposeembracedbytheobjectsforwhichthe   governmentwasordained.  ` x` x Id.at38485.0  2  (# (#  ` Althoughdecidedbyanexiguouspluralityoffivevotes C  tofour,andbasedondubiousconstitutionalfoundations,the   InsularCasesbecameanarticleoffaithinAmericanconstitutional 6 dogma,withfarreachingconsequencesonthelivesofthemillions G ofpersonswhomtheyimpactedinveryfundamentalways.See  Torruella,supranote30,at117266. :  B.UnitedStatescitizenshipfortheresidentsofPuertoRico  K  ` IntheaftermathoftheInsularCases,theUnitedStates  settledintothebusinessofgoverningitsfarflungcolonial Z empireandemergedfromitsisolationistcocoonintotheworldof k powerpolitics.SeegenerallyFosterDulles,America'sRiseto  ! WorldPower,18981954(1955).Inthemeantime,between1901and !^# 1917,atotaloftwentyonebillswerepresentedinCongress o# % proposingthegrantofU.S.citizenshiptoPuertoRico's % ' inhabitants. #  34      ׀DuringthisinterregnumbetweentheInsularCases &b") andthe1917passageoftheJonesAct,ch.145,39Stat.951(1917) s($+ ЄwhichgrantedU.S.citizenshiptotheresidentsofPuertoRico, e id.5theSupremeCourtdecided_//Rassmussen_//v.UnitedStates,  197U.S.516(1905)._//Rassmussen_//providesanimportantbackdropto X thegrantofcitizenshiptoPuertoRicansbecauseinit,the i  SupremeCourtseemedtolinktheincorporationofaterritoryinto   theUnitedStates(andthusfullapplicationoftheConstitution)  \  tothegrantingofcitizenshiptotheinhabitantsofaterritory. m  Seeid.at522(findinggrantofcitizenshiptoresidentsofnewly   acquiredterritoryofAlaskaserved"toexpressthepurposeto `  incorporateacquiredterritoryintotheUnitedStates."). q   ` TherewasthereforegreatexpectationinPuertoRicowhen  CongresspassedtheJonesActin1917,which,inadditionto d providingPuertoRicanswithanelectedbicamerallegislature, u grantedU.S.citizenshiptotheresidentsofPuertoRico._// #  35      _//ԀThese ! hopesweresoondeflatedbytheSupremeCourtinBalzacv.Porto h Rico,258U.S.298(1922),inwhichChiefJusticeWilliamHoward y Taft,_// #  36      _//Ԁatthispointwritingforaunanimouscourt,heldthatno %  righttotrialbyjuryattachedtoBalzac'snewstatusasaU.S. e citizenbecause,evenaftertheJonesAct,PuertoRicoremainedan  unincorporatedterritorywithonly"fundamentalrights"underthe X Constitutionapplying.Therighttotrialbyjurywasnot,the i  Courtreaffirmed,"afundamentalright."Id.at30910(quoting   _//Dorr_//v.UnitedStates,195U.S.138,148(1904).ContraDuncanv.  \  Louisiana,391U.S.145,154(1968)(holdingthattrialbyjuryis m  afundamentalright).    ` WhatrightsdidU.S.citizenshipgivePuertoRicans?"It `  enabledthemtomoveintothecontinentalUnitedStates,"andupon q  becomingresidentsthereof,toenjoytherightsofothercitizens.  Balzac,258U.S.at308.Itwaslocalitythatcounted,saidChief d JusticeTaft,"notthestatusofthepeoplewholiveinit."Id. u at309.Inlanguagereminiscentoftheraciallytinged ! asseverationsofJusticeBrownin_//Downes_//,ChiefJusticeTaftwent h ontosay: y 8 ` Thejurysystempostulatesaconsciousdutyof e participationinthemachineryofjustice ; whichitishardforpeoplenotbroughtupin  fundamentallypopulargovernmentatonceto  acquire....Congresshasthoughtthata X peopleliketheFilipinos,orthePorto . Ricans,trainedtoacompletejudicialsystem i  whichknowsnojuries,livingincompactand ?  ancientcommunities,withdefinitelyformed   customsandpoliticalconceptions,shouldbe    permittedthemselvestodeterminehowfarthey  \  wishtoadoptthisinstitutionofAnglo-Saxon  2  origin,andwhen.m ` x` x Id.,at310.    ` _//Rassmussen_//wasdistinguished: `  8 ` Itistruethatintheabsenceofotherand q  countervailingevidence,alawofCongress.. G .declaringanintentiontoconferpolitical  andcivilrightsontheinhabitantsofthenew  landsasAmericancitizens,maybeproperly d interpretedtomeananincorporationofit : intotheUnion,asinthecaseofLouisiana u andAlaska.Thiswasoneofthechiefgrounds K [fortheholdingin_//Rasmussen_//]....But ! Alaskawasaverydifferentcasefromthatof  PortoRico.Itwasanenormousterritory, h verysparselysettled,andoffering > opportunityforimmigrationandsettlementby y Americancitizens.ItwasontheAmerican O continentandwithineasyreachofthethen %  UnitedStates.Itinvolvednoneofthe ! difficultieswhichincorporationofthe  l" PhilippinesandPortoRicopresents....!B#` x` x Id.at309(internalcitationomitted). S#%  ` Thisisaprimeexampleofthedoublestandardthathas $ ' beenusedbytheCourt,andconcomitantlybyCongress,in &F") determiningtherightstowhichtheU.S.citizensofPuertoRico W(#+ areentitled.Unfortunately,itisonewhichhasbeenrepeated *%- sinceBalzacwasdecided.See_//Califano_//v._//Gautier_//ԀTorres,435U.S. +J'/ 1(1978)(upholdingSocialSecurityActprovisionsdenyingbenefits e toU.S.citizenswhomovetoPuertoRico);Harrisv.Rosario,446  U.S.651(1980)(upholdingstatuteprovidinglessfederalfinancial X assistancetoPuertoRicothanotherstatestoaidfamilieswith i  dependentchildren).    ` TheCourt'srulingsin_//Kinsella_//v._//Krueger_//,351U.S.470  \  (1956),_//reh'd_//Ԁgranted352U.S.901(1956),andReidv.Covert,351 m  U.S.487(1956),_//reh'd_//Ԁgranted,352U.S.901(1956),illustrate   thispointevenmoreclearly.Although,indenyingPuertoRicans `  therighttotrialbyjuryinBalzac,ChiefJusticeTaft q  unequivocallystatedthat"[_//i]t_//Ԁislocalitythatisdeterminative  oftheapplicationoftheConstitutioninsuchmattersasjudicial d procedure,andnotthestatusofthepeoplewholiveinit,"258 u U.S.at309,theSupremeCourtneverthelesschosetooverlookthis ! rulewhendeciding_//Kinsella_//andReidintheaftermathoftheSecond h WorldWar. y  ` Bothcasesinvolvedchallengestotheapplicationofthe %  UniformCodeofMilitaryJusticetowomenwhoweretried,convicted  l" andsentencedbycourtmartialformurderingtheirserviceman }"$ husbands,oneinJapan(_//Kinsella_//),andtheotherinEngland(Reid). )$& Neitherhadthebenefitofindictmentbygrandjuryortrialbefore %p!( apetitjury.Onthefirstround,theCourt,relyingonBalzac, '#*  affirmedthevalidityofbothconvictions._//Kinsella_//,351U.S.at -)$, 47480;Reid,351U.S.at49091(relyingon_//Kinsella_//as e establishingvalidityofmilitaryjurisdiction).    ` Thisoutcomewasfollowedbymuchpublicstirring,an X unsurprisingresult,consideringthenumberofcivilianU.S. i  citizenswhowerethenattachedtothemilitaryoverseas.The   publicoutcryundoubtedlycontributedtotheirbeingreheardalmost  \  immediately,earlyintheCourt'snextterm. m   ` Thepluralityopinion,reversingtheprioroutcome,was   writtenbyJusticeBlack.Heannouncedthattherelianceplacedon `  theInsularCasesinthefirst_//Kinsella_//opinionwas"misplaced." q  Reidv.Covert,354U.S.1,13(1957).Inlanguagereminiscentof  JusticeHarlan'sdissentsintheInsularCases,JusticeBlack d stated: u 8 ` The'InsularCases'canbedistinguishedfrom ! thepresentcasesinthattheyinvolvedthe  powerofCongresstoproviderulesand h regulationstogoverntemporarilyterritories > withwhollydissimilartraditionsand y institutionswhereasherethebasisfor O governmentalpowerisAmericancitizenship.. %  ..TheconceptthattheBillofRightsand ! otherconstitutionalprotectionsagainst  l" arbitrarygovernmentareinoperativewhenthey !B# becomeinconvenientorwhenexpediency }"$ dictatesotherwiseisaverydangerous S#% doctrineandifallowedtoflourishwould )$& destroythebenefitofawrittenConstitution $ ' andunderminethebasisofourgovernment.%p!(` x` x Id.at14(emphasisadded). '#*  `  ` Thenewoutcomein_//Kinsella_//andReid,aswellasthe -)$, reversalof_//Plessy_//byBrownv.BoardofEducation,347U.S.483 *t&. (1954),accentuatetherealpolitikofthecivilandpolitical e rightsoftheUnitedStatescitizenswhoresideinPuertoRico,for  itisbecauseofthedemocraticdeficitinthePuertoRicoUnited X StatesrelationshipthatPuertoRicoentersitssecondcenturyof i  itscolonialconditionwiththeUnitedStateswithoutany   resolutionofthisconundruminsight. #  37      ׀Stagnationisinevitable,  \  forthereisapoliticalvacuuminthePuertoRicoUnitedStates m  linkage.Noeffectivepoliticalpressurecanbeexercisedbythe   subjectsofthiscolonialrelationshiponthenationalpolitical `  institutionswithpowertosolvetheproblem.Itisprecisely q  becausethisdiscretepopulationofUnitedStatescitizensiskept  inavotelessstatebythenationalpoliticalinstitutionsthat d have"plenarypowers"overPuertoRicothata"politicalsolution" u isnotarealisticoption.TheopinionofU.S.votersaffectedby ! _//Kinsella_//andReidcouldbeheardandfeltinWashington,ascould h thatofAfricanAmericansafter_//Plessy_//,eveniftheywerea y numericalminority,becausetheyhadasignificantpolitical %  presencethatwasboundtobelistenedtosoonerorlater.There  l" canbelittledoubtthatthispoliticalcloutwastransformedinto }"$ ajudicialresult.Cf.supranote31.NotsowithPuertoRico's )$& U.S.citizens.Theyhavenoeffectivewayofinfluencingthe %p!( politicalbranchesofthenationalgovernment.PuertoRico'slone e nonvotingrepresentativeinCongressisaprimeexampleofPuerto  Rico'spoliticaldefenselessness.Thepoliticalpressurethatcan X beexercisedbythosewhotookChiefJusticeTaft'sadvice,and i  movedtotheMainland,issodilutedinthegeneralpopulationof   theUnitedStatesastomakeanypoliticalpressurebythem  \  exiguous. m   ` Thistotallackofpoliticalpowerisafactthatis   glossedoverbythemajoritywhenitrighteouslydictatesthat `  PuertoRicans'"righttovoteinpresidentialelectionsis q  fundamentallyapolitical[issue]andmustbe[achieved]through  politicalmeans."Maj.op.at13.Towhat"politicalmeans"is d themajorityreferring?Politicalmeansarepreciselywhatthe u U.S.citizensofPuertoRicolack,andcannotcreateoutofthin ! airasifbyalchemy. h  ` Notonlydothenationalpoliticalbrancheslack y incentivetoact,but,asillustratedbythemajority'sviews, #  38       %  thisdisincentivehasalsobeenmanifestedintheThirdBranch, e which,ifthetruthbetold,laidthegroundworkforthisstateof  affairswithitsdecisionsintheInsularCasesandBalzac,and X continuestoperpetuatetheinherentinequalitiesthuscreated. i   ` TheSupremeCourtthereforehaseveryreasonto   reconsidertheInsularCasesandBalzac.Theyaretheproductof  \  anerawhichisablotonournationalandjudicialhistory.The m  basisuponwhichtheywerepremisedthattheUnitedStatescould   holdterritoriesandtheirinhabitantsinacolonialstatusad `  infinitum󀄄wasunprecedentedandunauthorizedbythe q  Constitution.TheinterpretationgivenbytheInsularCasesand  BalzactotheConstitutionpermitstheperpetuation,without d limitation,ofaclassofcitizensunequalinrightstotherestof u thebodypolitic,ananachronismthatisunsupportablemorally, ! logicallyorlegally. h  ` Furthermore,theunderpinningstothisdoctrinehave y sincebeeneroded.Ifthereeverwereajustificationfortheir %  outcomebasedontheexpediencyofthehistoricalepochduring  l" whichtheyweredecided,thisjustificationcannolongerbe }"$ sustained.SincetheInsularCasesandBalzacweredecided,_//Plessy_// )$& hasbeenreversedbyBrown,makingracialdiscriminationlegally e andethicallyunacceptable.Discriminationonthebasisof  localitymakesasmuchsenseassuchopprobriousconductbasedon X race.Moreover,theidea,expressedinBalzac,thattherightto i  trialbyjuryisnotafundamentalconstitutionalrightisno   longerthelawoftheland.SeeDuncan,391U.S.at154.Balzac's  \  rulinghasthereforeceasedtobethelawoftheland. m   ` PuertoRicoispartoftheFirstCircuit.AnArticleIII   DistrictCourtsitsthere,providingnearlyonethirdofthe `  appealsfiledbeforethiscourt,whichsitsinPuertoRicoatleast q  twiceayear,alsointheexerciseofArticleIIIpower.One  activejudgeofthiscourtresidesinPuertoRicoandparticipates d incasesthatareoftenofnationalimportance,butisnonetheless u disenfranchisedfromvotingfornationaloffices.Howcanthe ! ConstitutionbeappliedinsuchaBalkanized,arbitraryand h irrationalmanner?See_//Downes_//,182U.S.at374(Fuller,C.J., y dissenting)("[_//T]he_//ԀlanguageoftheConstitutionistooplainand %  unambiguoustopermititsmeaningtobethusinfluenced.").  l"  ` ThepropositionthatPuertoRico"_//belong[s_//]to...but }"$ [is]notapartoftheUnitedStates,"_//Downes_//,181U.S.at287, )$& likethe"separatebutequal"conceptendorsedin_//Plessy_//,belongs %p!( totheDarkAgesofAmericanconstitutionallawandshouldbe '#* relegatedtoaperiodinourhistorybestforgotten. -)$,  *t&. @88) II.  e  A.Therighttovoteisafundamentalconstitutionalright  -  ` Therighttovoteisafundamentalright,whichour  Constitutionguaranteestoallcitizens.See,e.g.,Bushv.Gore,  < 531U.S.98,104(2000);_//Burson_//v.Freeman,504U.S.191,198 M  (1992);_//Tashjian_//v.RepublicanParty,479U.S.208(1986);Buckley    v._//Valeo_//,424U.S.1,49n.55(1976);_//Lubin_//v._//Panish_//,415U.S. @  709,721(1974);Bullockv.Carter,405U.S.134(1972);Phoenixv. Q  _//Kolodziejski_//,399U.S.204(1970);Harperv.VirginiaStateBd.of   Elections,383U.S.663,667(1966);Reynoldsv.Sims,377U.S. D 533,561562(1964);_//Wesberry_//v.Sanders,376U.S.1,7(1964). U 8 ` Norightismorepreciousinafreecountry  thanthatofhavingavoiceintheelectionof r thosewhomakethelawsunderwhich,asgood H citizens,wemustlive.Otherrights,even  themostbasic,areillusoryiftherightto Y voteisundermined.OurConstitutionleavesno / roomforclassificationofpeopleinaway  thatunnecessarilyabridgesthisright.3v` x` x _//Wesberry_//,376U.S.at1718."[_//H]istory_//Ԁhasseenacontinuing " expansionofthescopeoftherightofsuffrageinthiscountry. 3 ! Therighttovotefreelyforthecandidateofone'schoiceisof !z# theessenceofademocraticsociety,andanyrestrictionsonthat #&% rightstrikeattheheartofrepresentativegovernment."Reynolds 7% ' v.Sims,377U.S.533,555(1964)(footnoteomitted). &~")  ` Fundamentalvotingrightsprotectionsshouldapplyfully (*$+ toU.S.citizensresidinginPuertoRico.Evenunderthenotorious ;*%- InsularCases,ithasbeenheldthattheConstitutionextends +'/ fundamentalrightstoPuertoRico.SeeBalzac,258U.S.at31213. e TheFifthAmendmentisfullyapplicabletotheactionsoftheU.S.  governmentinPuertoRico.Cf.ExaminingBd.ofEngineersv. X Floresde_//Otero_//,426U.S.572(1976).Althoughnotidenticalto i  thatoftheFourteenthAmendment,anequalprotectioncomponentis   partofthedueprocessclauseoftheFifthAmendment,andserves  \  toconstraintheUnitedStates.See_//Bolling_//v.Sharpe,347U.S. m  497,49899(1954)(holdingthatdespitelackofexplicitequal   protectionclause,"discriminationmaybesounjustifiableastobe `  _//violative_//Ԁofdueprocess").Theutterfailureofthegovernmentof q  theUnitedStatestotakeanyactiontoprotectitscitizensin  PuertoRicofromcontinuednationaldisenfranchisementisa d violationofdueprocessandequalprotectionundertheFifth u AmendmentoftheConstitution. !  B.Internationallaw  h  ` Inadditiontotherighttovoteenshrinedinits 0 Constitution,theUnitedStatesisalsobound,bothdomestically A  andinternationally,byguaranteesofvotingrightsfoundin  " internationallaw.Historicallyreferredtoas"thelawof "4$ nations,"internationallawincorporatesbothtreatylawand E$& customaryinternationallaw.Restatement(Third)ofForeign %!( RelationsLawoftheUnitedStates102(2004)("Restatement"). '8#* Thusconceived,internationallawhasbeenanintegralpartofour I)$, constitutionalandlegalsystemsincethefoundingofourNation. *&. See_//Sosa_//v.Alvarez_//Machain_//,124S.Ct.2739,2764(2004)("Fortwo e centurieswehaveaffirmedthatthedomesticlawoftheUnited  Statesrecognizesthelawofnations.");The_//Paquete_//Ԁ_//Habana_//,175 X U.S.677,700(1900)("Internationallawispartofourlaw,and i  mustbeascertainedandadministeredbythecourtsofjusticeof   appropriatejurisdiction,asoftenasquestionsofrightdepending  \  uponitaredulypresentedfortheirdetermination.");The_//Nereide_//, m  13U.S.(9Cranch)388,423(1815)("[_//T]he_//ԀCourtisboundbythe   lawofnationswhichispartofthelawoftheland.").The `  importanceplacedoninternationallaw,fromthefoundingofthe q  UnitedStates,asacomponentofthenation'slegalsystemis  evidentinitsConstitution,whichauthorizedCongress"[_//t]o_//Ԁdefine d andpunishPiraciesandFeloniescommittedonthehighSeas,and u OffensesagainsttheLawofNations,"U.S.Const.art.I,8,cl. ! 10,grantedthePresidentthepower,"byandwiththeAdviceand h ConsentoftheSenate,tomakeTreaties,"id.art.II,2,cl.2, y andextendedtheArticleIIIauthorityofthefederaljudiciaryto %  "allCases,inLawandEquity,arisingunderthisConstitution,the  l" LawsoftheUnitedStates,_// #  39      _//ԀandTreatiesmade,orwhichshallbe }"$ made,"id.art.III,2,cl.1.Italsoprovidedthat"[_//t]his_// )$& Constitution,andtheLawsoftheUnitedStateswhichshallbemade %p!( inPursuancethereof;andallTreatiesmade,orwhichshallbe e made,undertheAuthorityoftheUnitedStates,shallbethe  supremeLawoftheLand;andtheJudgesineverystateshallbe X boundthereby,anyThingintheConstitutionorLawsofanyState i  totheContrarynotwithstanding."Id.art.VI,cl.2.Inlightof   thehistoricalsignificanceofinternationallaw,theSupremeCourt  \  hasrecentlyrecognizedthat"[_//i]t_//Ԁwouldtakesomeexplainingto m  saynowthatfederalcourtsmustaverttheirgazeentirelyfromany   internationalnormintendedtoprotectindividuals."_//Sosa_//,124 `  _//S.Ct_//.at276465. q   ` Welooktothetreatiesandconventionstowhichthe  UnitedStatesisaparty,bothtodeterminewhethertheyimposea d directobligationontheUnitedStatesthatisrelevantto u plaintiffsappellants'claims,and,incombinationwithwidely ! observedlegalnormsandpracticesamongthenationsoftheworld h today,asevidenceofbindingcustomaryinternationallawthat y wouldsupportplaintiffsappellants'claims.SeeRestatement102 %  (identifyingsourcesofcustomaryinternationallaw);seealsoid.  l" 103(identifyingsecondaryevidenceofinternationallaw). }"$  ` TheUnitedStateshasparticipatedinseveral )$& internationalinstrumentsrelevanttotheissuebeforeus:(1)the %p!( UniversalDeclarationofHumanRights("_//UDHR_//")G.A.Res.217A '#* (III),U.N.Doc.A/810(1948);(2)theAmericanDeclarationofthe -)$, RightsandDutiesofMan("AmericanDeclaration"),_//O.A.S._//ԀRes.XXX *t&. (1948),_//O.A.S._//ԀOff.Rec._//OEA_///Ser.L/V/I.4Rev.(1965)(3)the e InterAmericanDemocraticCharteroftheOrganizationofAmerican  States("_//IADC_//"),28thSpec.Sess.,OASDoc._//OEA_///Ser.P/AG/RES.1 X (XXVIIIE/01)(OASGeneralAssembly)(Sept.11,2001),and(4)the i  InternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights("_//ICCPR_//"),   openedforsignatureDec16,1966,999_//U.N.T.S._//Ԁ171._// #  40      _//  \   ` In1948,thememberstatesoftheGeneralAssemblyofthe m  UnitedNations,includingtheUnitedStates,proclaimedthe_//UDHR_//,   whichstates:  `  8 ` 1.Everyonehastherighttotakepartinthe q  governmentofhiscountry,directlyorthrough G freelychosenrepresentatives. @p ` x` x  `  ` ...[andthat] d  `  8 ` 3.Thewillofthepeopleshallbe... u expressedinperiodicandgenuineelections K whichshallbebyuniversalandequalsuffrage ! ....s` x` x _//UDHR_//Ԁart.21.0 > (# (#  ` AlthoughtheSupremeCourthasruledthat"the[_//UDHR_//] O doesnotofitsownforceimposeobligationsasamatterof ! internationallaw,"_//Sosa_//,124S.Ct.at2767,ithasnevertheless !B# recognizedits"moralauthority,"id.,andhascitedtoits S#% provisionsonseveraloccasions.SeeKnightv.Florida,528U.S. e 990,996(1999)(_//Breyer_//,J.,dissenting)(notingU.N.HumanRights  Committeedecisionsthatatenyeardelaybetweendeathsentence X andexecutionisnotnecessarilyaviolationof_//UDHR_//Ԁasinformative i  precedentinEighthAmendmentcase);_//Dandridge_//v.Williams,397   U.S.471,520n.14(1970)(citing_//UDHR_//ԀArticle25asinformative  \  "[_//o]n_//Ԁtheissueofwhetherthereisa'right'towelfare m  assistance");_//Zemel_//v.Rusk,381U.S.1,14n.13(1965)(citing   _//UDHR_//ԀArticle13indiscussionofscopeofdueprocess);Kennedyv. `  MendozaMartinez,372U.S.144,161n.16(1963)(noting,in q  rejectingrevocationofU.S.citizenshipasconsequenceof  remainingabroadtoevademilitaryservice,the_//UDHR_//'sguarantee d "oftherightofeverycitizentoretainanationality");Am._//Fed'n_// u ofLaborv.Am.Sash&DoorCo.,335U.S.538,549n.5(1949) ! (Frankfurter,J.,concurring)(citing_//UDHR_//Ԁprovisionsonfreedom h frommandatoryassociationincontextofdiscussingforeign y standardsoflaborlaw). %   ` Beyondthe_//UDHR_//,ArticleXXoftheAmericanDeclaration,  l" agreedtoin1948byallofthememberStatesoftheOrganization }"$ ofAmericanStates,includingtheUnitedStates,providesthat: )$& "[_//e]very_//Ԁpersonhavinglegalcapacityisentitledtoparticipatein %p!( thegovernmentofhiscountry,directlyorthroughhis '#*  representatives,andtotakepartinpopularelections...." -)$,  ` In2001,theUnitedStatesjoinedthirtyfourother e  countriesinthishemisphereinadoptingthe_//IADC_//.Coincidentally,  thisoccurredataSpecialGeneralAssemblyoftheOrganizationof X theAmericanStatesmeetinginLima,Peruonthefatefuldayof i  September11,2001.TheimportanceofthisagreementtotheUnited   Statescanbegaugedbywhattookplacethereandbytheactionsof  \  SecretaryofStateCollinPowell,whoheadedtheU.S.delegationat m  thatmeeting.Afterthankingthegathereddelegatesfortheir   expressionsofsolidarityandcondolencesfortheterroristattacks `  thathadoccurredthatdayagainsttheUnitedStateshomeland,the q  Secretarystated:  8 ` ItisimportantthatIremainhereforabit d longerinordertobepartoftheconsensusof : thisnewcharterondemocracy.Thatisthe u mostimportantthingthatIcandobefore K departingtogobacktoWashington,D.C.and ! attendtheimportantbusinessthatawaitsme  andmyothercolleagues....Ihopewecan h movetheorderofbusinesstotheadoptionof > theCharterbecauseIverymuchwantto y expresstheUnitedStates'commitmentto O democracyinthishemisphere....Andwe %  unitebehinditasdemocraticnations ! committedtoindividualliberties.... l"` x` x SecretaryColinPowell,StatementattheSpecialGeneralAssembly }"$ oftheOrganizationofAmericanStates(Sep.11,2001),available )$& at4?sO  5  http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2001/5656.htm.6sOizen  7c ԀThereafter, %p!( theSpecialAssemblyadoptedthe_//IADC_//,whichamongotherrelevant '#* provisionsstates: -)$,  *t&. 8 ` Article2e` x` x 8 `  ` x` x 8 ` Theeffectiveexerciseofrepresentative  democracyisthebasisfortheruleoflawand  constitutionalregimesofthememberstatesX` x` x 8 `  ` x` x 8 ` ....0` x` xi xx 8 `  ` x` x 8 ` Article30` x` x xx 8 `  ` x` x 8 ` Essentialelementsofrepresentativedemocracy  \  include,interalia...theholdingof  2  periodic,andfairelectionsbasedonsecret m  ballotinganduniversalsuffrageasan C  expressionofthesovereigntyofthepeople ` x` x 8 `  ` x` x 8 ` ....` ` x` x 8 ` Article60` x` xq xx 8 ` Itistherightandresponsibilityofall  citizenstoparticipateindecisionsrelating  totheirowndevelopment.Thisisalsoa d necessaryconditionforthefullandeffective : exerciseofdemocracy....xu` x` x  ` Priortotheapprovalofthe_//IADC_//,however,theUnited ! Stateshadalreadyenteredintoanotherinternationalagreement h whoseprovisionsareofsingularimportancetotheissuebeforeus. y Byvirtueofthe_//ICCPR_//,whichcameintoforceonMarch23,1976, %  andwasratifiedbytheSenateonApril12,1992,see138Cong.  l" Rec.S4781,S4783,theUnitedStatescommitted,inclearand }"$ unambiguousterms,that"[_//e]very_//Ԁcitizenshallhavetherightand )$& theopportunity...[_//t]o_//Ԁvote...atgenuineperiodicelections %p!( whichshallbebyuniversalandequalsuffrage...."_//ICCPR_//Ԁart. '#* 25.Furthermore,inratifyingArticle2,Paragraph1,theUnited -)$, Statesagreedthatitwould"undertake[]torespectandtoensure *t&. toallindividualswithinitsterritoryandsubjecttoits e jurisdictiontherightsrecognizedinthepresentCovenant...  withoutdistinctionofanykind...."Mostimportant,and X centraltotheissuebeforeus,thesignatorynationscommitted i  themselvesthat:   8 ` [_//W]here_//Ԁnotalreadyprovidedforbyexisting  \  _//legislati[on_//]...eachStateParty...  2  undertakestotakenecessarysteps,in m  accordancewithitsconstitutionalprocesses C  andwiththeprovisionsofthepresent   Covenant,toadoptsuchlegislationorother   measuresasmaybenecessarytogiveeffectto `  therightsrecognizedinthepresentCovenant.6` x` x Id.art.2,para.2(emphasisadded)._// #  41      _// G  ` WeturnnowtoanexaminationoftheUnitedStates'  obligationsundertheseinternationalinstrumentsandthecustomary : internationallawtowhichtheycontribute. K   ` 1.Treatyobligations    ` By1992,103nationshadbecomepartiestothe_//ICCPR_//, Z withanotherfive,includingtheUnitedStates,havingsigned.On k April,12,1992,asrequiredbytheConstitution,twothirdsofthe  ! UnitedStatesSenatevotedinfavorofratifyingthe_//ICCPR_//.138 !^# Cong.Rec.S4781,S4783.UnderArticleVI,Clause2ofthe e Constitution,atreatythusratifiedhasequalstatustoanactof  Congress.Thatis,atreatyislawoftheUnitedStates.See, X e.g.,JordanJ._//Paust_//,InternationalLawasLawoftheUnited i  States99105,120(2ded.2002).Aswithstatutes,alatertreaty   supercedesinconsistentearlierenactedstatute,providedthe  \  treatyprovisiononthesubjectisselfexecuting.Whitneyv. m  Robertson,124U.S.190,194(1888).    ` Whenitratifiedthe_//ICCPR_//,however,theSenatealso `  issuedadeclarationtotheeffectthatthesubstantiveprovisions q  ofthe_//ICCPR_//Ԁwouldnotbeselfexecuting._// #  42      _//Ԁ138Cong.Rec.at  S4784.IwholeheartedlyagreewithJudgeHoward'sconclusionthat e thisdeclarationisnotbindingonthiscourt,andthatfurther  inquirytodeterminewhetherthe_//ICCPR_//Ԁisindeednonselfexecuting X isrequired.Seeinfraat89(Howard,J.,dissenting).Iwillnot i  attempttorestatehissoundreasoninghere.However,evenifthis   approachisnotaccepted,thiscourtisnot,asexplainedbelow,  \  entirelywithoutpowertoact. m   ` Ifthe_//ICCPR_//Ԁwerenotselfexecuting,thetreaty,qua   treaty,couldnotbeinvokedbyaprivatecitizenasthebasisfor `  acourtoftheUnitedStatestoorderthatcitizen'sfull q  participationintheelectoralprocessesoftheUnitedStates.See  _//Sosa_//,124S.Ct.at2767(recognizingtheinternationallybinding d natureofthe_//ICCPR_//,butobservingthat"theUnitedStatesratified u theCovenantontheexpressunderstandingthatitwasnotself ! executingandsodidnotitselfcreateobligationsenforceablein h thefederalcourts")._//@ #  43      _//ԀThatis,acourtoftheUnitedStatescould y notusetherequirement,establishedinArticle25ofthe_//ICCPR_//, %  that"[_//e]very_//Ԁcitizenshallhavetherightandopportunity...to e vote,"asthebasisforenforcinganindividual'srightto  participateintheelectoralprocessesoftheUnitedStates,until X suchtimeastherehasbeenmunicipalimplementationofArticle25 i  bytheenactmentofintranationallegislationorconstitutional   provision.NeithercouldthecourtsoftheUnitedStatesorder  \  thatthelegislativebranchofgovernmentliveuptothe m  obligationsundertakenbytheUnitedStatesto"adoptsuch   legislationorothermeasuresasmaybenecessarytogiveeffectto `  [therighttovoteestablishedinArticle25ofthe_//ICCPR_//]."_//ICCPR_// q  art.2,para.2.Suchanintromissionwouldviolatethe  constitutionalprincipleofseparationofpowers.SeeSmith&Lee d _//Assocs_//.,Inc.v.CityofTaylor,Mich.,102F.3d781,797(6thCir. u 1996)("FederalCourtsdohavejurisdictionandpowertopassupon ! theconstitutionalityofActsofCongress,butwearenotawareof h anydecisionextendingthispowerinFederalCourtstoorder y Congresstoenactlegislation.Todosowouldconstitute %  encroachmentuponthefunctionsofalegislativebodyandwould  l" violatethetimehonoredprincipleofseparationofpowersofthe }"$ threegreatdepartmentsofourGovernment.").Themajority's )$& contentionsregardingthetrumpingoftreatyprovisionsbythe %p!( Constitution,maj.op.at7,arethusinapposite,asIrecognize '#* thevalidityofthishierarchyandamnotinanywayproposingits -)$, violation. *t&.  ` Thatsaid,however,itisanundisputedfactthat, e contrarytotherequirementsofArticle2,Paragraph2ofthe  _//ICCPR_//,theUnitedStateshastakennosteps,todate,toimplement X theobligationsundertakentherein.Moredirectlyonpoint,the i  UnitedStateshasnotenactedanylegislation,passedany   constitutionalprovision,orevenputinmotionanyprocess  \  directedatnationallyenfranchisingthenearlyfourmillionUnited m  StatescitizensresidinginPuertoRico,notwithstandingits   ratificationofthe_//ICCPR_//ԀandtheSenate'sacknowledgment"[_//t]hat_// `  theUnitedStatesunderstandsthatthisCovenantshallbe q  implementedbytheFederalGovernment."138Cong.Rec.S4781,  S4784(emphasisadded).Accordingly,theUnitedStatesisnotin d compliancewiththebindingobligationsitundertookbysigningand u ratifyingthe_//ICCPR_//.Themajoritydoesnotandcannotrefutethis ! undeniablefact,and,asexplainedbelow,thepotentiallynonself h executingnatureofthe_//ICCPR_//Ԁdoesnotprecludeourabilitytomake y adeclarationtothateffect,seeinfraPart_//III.C._// %    ` 2.Customaryinternationallaw  l"   ` Customaryinternationallawconstitutes"thoseclearand "4$ unambiguousrulesbywhichStatesuniversally_// #  44      _//Ԁabide,ortowhich E$& theyaccede,outofasenseoflegalobligationandmutualconcern e ...."Floresv.S.PeruCopperCorp.,406F.3d65,84(2dCir.  2003).Thenorminquestionmustbe"specific,universaland X obligatory,"InreEstateofFerdinandMarcos,HumanRights_//Litig_//., i  25F.3d1467,1475(9thCir.1994),andmustbeamatterof   "mutual,andnotmerelyseveralconcern...."Flores,406F.3d  \  at81(quoting_//Filartiga_//v._//Pea_//Ԅ_//Irala_//,630F.2d876,888(2dCir. m  1980)).    ` Althoughthetestisdemanding,thecontentofcustomary `  internationallawisnotfixedandimmutable.See_//Sosa_//,124S.Ct. q  at276162("[_//W]e_//Ԁthinkcourtsshouldrequireanyclaimbasedon  thepresentdaylawofnationstorestonanormofinternational d characteracceptedbythecivilizedworldanddefinedwitha u specificitycomparabletothefeaturesofthe18thcentury ! paradigmswehaverecognized.");_//Filartiga_//,630F.2dat881("[_//I]t_// h isclearthatcourtsmustinterpretinternationallawnotasitwas y in1789,butasithasevolvedandexistsamongthenationsofthe %  worldtoday.")(citingWarev_//Hylton_//,3U.S.(3Dall.)199(1796)  l" (distinguishing"ancient"from"modern"lawofnations)).Welook }"$ tointernationalinstrumentssettingforth"clearandunambiguous )$& rules,"Flores,406F.3dat84,andtootherindicationsof %p!( widespreadcompliancemotivatedbyasenseoflegalobligation,by '#* thenationsoftheworldtoestablishthecontentofcustomary -)$, internationallaw.Seeid.at8284;Restatement102(2) e ("Customaryinternationallawresultsfromageneralandconsistent  practiceofstatesfollowedbythemfromasenseoflegal X obligation."). i   ` The_//ICCPR_//,the_//UDHR_//,theAmericanDeclaration,the_//ACHR_//   andthe_//IADC_//Ԁareallevidenceoftheemergenceofanormof  \  customaryinternationallawwithanindependentandbinding m  juridicalstatus.SeeRestatement102(3)("International   agreements...mayleadtothecreationofcustomary `  internationallawwhensuchagreementsareintendedforadherence q  bystatesgenerallyandareinfactwidelyaccepted.").Theright  toequalpoliticalparticipationrequiredbytheseinstruments,as d outlinedabove,isclearandunambiguous.The_//ICCPR_//,forexample, u admitsofnodoubtwhenitstatesthat"[_//e]very_//Ԁcitizenshallhave ! therightandtheopportunity...[_//t]o_//Ԁvote...atgenuine h periodicelectionswhichshallbebyuniversalandequalsuffrage y ...."_//ICCPR_//Ԁart.25.Theuniversalacceptanceofthisrightto %  equalpoliticalparticipationisdemonstratedbytheprevalenceof  l" therightinavarietyofmultinationalandregionalagreements, }"$ andbythebroadacceptanceofthoseagreementsbythecountriesof )$& theworld.Currently,forexample,163nationsofthe191member %p!( UnitedNationsarepartiestothe_//ICCPR_//,withanadditionalseven '#*  signatoriesthathavenotyetratifiedthetreaty. -)$,  ` Therighttoequalpoliticalparticipation,asevidenced e  bytheseinternationaltreaties,covenants,anddeclarations,is  reinforcedbywhathasbecometheoverwhelmingpracticeworldwide. X See,e.g.,EnriqueLagos&TimothyD.Rudy,InDefenseof i  Democracy,35U.MiamiInterAm.L.Rev.283,28889(2004)   ("Democracyasaninternationallawnormhasbeen'emerging'for  \  sometime,especiallyinthewesternhemisphere.");FernandoR. m  _//Tes;n_//,"ChangingPerceptionsofDomesticJurisdictionand   Intervention,"inBeyond_//Soverignty_//:CollectivelyDefending `  DemocracyintheAmericas35(Tom_//Farer_//Ԁed.,1996)("[_//t]here_//Ԁcanbe q  littledoubtthataprincipleofdemocraticruleistodaypartof  internationallaw").Fromanexiguousminimumofonlytwentytwo d democraticgovernmentsoutof154sovereignstateselectedby u universalsuffrageincompetitivemultipartyelectionsin1950,the ! numberofdemocraticstatesto120outatotalof192nationsin h theyear2000.FreedomHouse,Democracy'sCentury:ASurveyof y GlobalPoliticalChangeinthe20thCentury2(1999).Whilethe %  systemofdemocraticgovernmentmaydifferfromcountrytocountry,  l" thefundamentalrightofcitizenstoparticipate, #  45      ׀directlyor }"$ indirectly,intheprocessofelectingtheirleadersisatthe )$& heartofalldemocraticgovernments.See,e.g.,JamesCrawford, %p!( "DemocracyandtheBodyofInternationalLaw,"inDemocratic e GovernanceandInternationalLaw93(GregoryFox&BradR.Roth  _//eds_//.,2000)("[_//t]hat_//Ԁthewillofthepeopleistobethebasisof X theauthorityofgovernmentisasgoodasummaryasanyofthe i  basicdemocraticidea").    ` Wecannotoverlook,andinfactweshouldtakejudicial  \  noticeof,themanyofficialactionsoftheUnitedStatesin m  promotingdemocraticelectionsthroughouttheworldnotthe   leastofwhichisitssupportfortherecentlyheldnational `  electionsinAfghanistanandIraq,_// #  46      _//ԀplaceswherethousandsofU.S. q  citizensfromPuertoRicoserve,APState&LocalWire,APackage  ofNewsBriefsfromtheCaribbean,Mar.19,2005(reporting1800 d PuertoRicanscurrentlystationedinIraq,Kuwait,Afghanistanand u Bosnia),atleasttwentyfiveofwhomhavelosttheirlivesin ! supportoftherightsofthecitizensofthosecountriestovote. h Id.ThesituationsinIraqandAfghanistanpresentthefurther y anomalyoftwoclassesofU.S.citizens,bothfightinganddying %  sidebyside,onlyoneofwhichwasabletovoteforitsCommander  l" inChief.SeeUniformedandOverseasCitizensAbsenteeVotingAct e 102,42U.S.C.1973ff-1(a)(requiringstatestopermitabsentee  votingbyoverseasmilitarypersonnel). X  ` Butmostimportant,inwhatmaybetheultimateexample i  ofnotseeingtheforestforthetrees,therearefewcountriesin   theworldinwhichtherighttovoteisasexaltedasitisinthe  \  UnitedStates.See_//Wesberry_//,376U.S.at17("Norightismore m  preciousinafreecountrythanthatofhavingavoiceinthe   electionofthosewhomakethelawsunderwhich,asgoodcitizens, `  wemustlive.").Furthermore,therighttovoteisdirectly q  protectedbyFederalstatute,whichprovidesbothciviland  criminalpenaltiesforinterferencetherewith,seeVotingRights d Act12,42U.S.C.1973,byseveralconstitutionalamendments, u seeU.S.Const.,amend.XV(prohibitingdiscriminationinvoting ! rightsbecauseofrace);id.amend.XIX(prohibitingvoting h discriminationbyreasonofgender);id.amend.XXIII(grantingthe y residentsoftheDistrictofColumbiatherighttovoteforthe %  PresidentoftheUnitedStates);id.amend.XXIV(prohibitingpoll  l" tax);id.amend.XXVI(extendingtherighttovotetoallcitizens }"$ overtheageof18);seealso,e.g.,ProclamationNo.7806,69Fed. )$& Reg.52,987(Aug.26,2004)(concerningwomen'srighttovote); %p!( ProclamationNo.7584,67Fed.Reg.55,317(Aug.23,2002) '#* (concerningAfghanwomen'srighttovote);ProclamationNo.6924, -)$, 61Fed.Reg.51,767(Oct.2,1996)(concerningrighttovotefor *t&. citizensagedbetween18and21);Der_//Reichman_//,BushPromotes e DemocracyinHemisphereoftheAmericas,SanJuanStar,Jun.5,  2005,at11(inaspeechbeforetheOrganizationofAmerican X States,PresidentBushurgedthatentitytomonitordemocratic i  progressinthehemisphere,checkthecredibilityofelections,and   offeravisionofhope"foundedonrepresentativegovernment").  \   ` Inlightoftheproliferationandwidespreadacceptance m  of,andcompliancewith,internationalinstrumentsthat   specificallyrequirearighttoequalpoliticalparticipationby `  allcitizens,weshouldconcludethatsucharightisanormof q  customaryinternationallaw.   ` Atleastsomecomponentsofcustomaryinternationallaw d areincorporatedintoUnitedStatesdomesticlawasfederalcommon u law.See_//Sosa_//,124_//S.Ct_//.at276465(recognizingaclassof ! internationallawclaimsasjudiciallyenforceablefederalcommon h law);_//Kadic_//v._//Karadzic_//,70F.3d232,246(2dCir.1995)(termingit y a"settledpropositionthatfederalcommonlawincorporates %  internationallaw");13BCharlesAlanWright,etal.,Federal  l" Practice&Procedure:Jurisdiction2d,3585,at329(2ded., }"$ 1984)("[_//T]oday_//Ԁitisnotdifficulttoconcludethatcustomary )$& internationallawispartoffederalcommonlaw...."). %p!(  ` TheSupremeCourtin_//Sosa_//recognizedthatcertainclaims '#* basedoncustomaryinternationallaw,asaresultoftheirstatus -)$, asfederalcommonlaw,canbeenforcedinthefederalcourtsunder *t&. theAlienTortStatute,28U.S.C.1350.See_//Sosa_//,124_//S.Ct_//. e 276465.AlthoughtheAlienTortStatutegrantsjurisdictiononly  over"causeswhereanaliensuesforatortonlyinviolationof X thelawofnationsoratreatyoftheUnitedStates,"28U.S.C. i  1350,the_//Sosa_//courtdidnotforeclosethepossibilityofdirectly   enforcingsomecustomaryinternationallawclaimsthroughthe  \  federalcommonlawwhenfederaljurisdictionisbasedonother m  grounds.See_//Sosa_//,124_//S.Ct_//.at2765,n.19(expressingdoubt,but   leavingopenpossibilityofcommonlawclaimsforviolationof `  customaryinternationallawwhenjurisdictionisbasedon28U.S.C. q  1331);cf.id.at2761(notingthat,atleastunderAlienTort  Statute,nolegaldevelopment"hascategoricallyprecludedfederal d courtsfromrecognizingaclaimunderthelawofnationsasan u elementofcommonlaw").Inlightoflegislativehistorythat ! indicatesCongress'sintenttoextendfederaljurisdictionover h cases"arisingunder"federallawtothefullestextentthe y Constitutionwouldallow,see2Cong.Rec.498687(1874)("The %  [Judiciary][_//A]ct_//Ԁof1789didnotconferthewhole[judicial]power  l" whichtheConstitutionconferred....Thisbilldoes.... }"$ ThisbillgivespreciselythepowerwhichtheConstitutionconfers )$& Єnothingmore,nothingless."),weshouldconcludethatthe %p!( jurisdictionconferredby28U.S.C.1331canencompassclaims '#* arisingundercustomaryinternationallawasincorporatedintothe -)$, federalcommonlaw. *t&.  ` TheSupremeCourtlimitedrecognizableclaims,however, e to"anarrowclassofinternationalnorms."Sosa,124S.Ct.at  2764.Specifically,"courtsshouldrequireanyclaimbasedonthe X presentdaylawofnationstorestonanorm[1]ofinternational i  character[2]acceptedbythecivilizedworldand[3]definedwith   aspecificitycomparabletothefeaturesofthe18thcentury  \  paradigms"thatwererecognizedatthattimeasactionable m  violationsofthelawofnations.Id.at276162.Thesewere   violationsofinternationallawthat"admitt[ed]ofajudicial `  remedyandatthesametimethreaten[ed]seriousconsequencesin q  internationalaffairs,"suchasthe18thcenturyprohibitionson  violationofsafeconducts,infringementoftherightsof d ambassadors,andpiracy.Id.at2756. u  ` Asestablishedabove,thefirsttworequirements ! internationalcharacterandbroadacceptancehavebeenmetin h thecaseofthecustomaryinternationallawrequirementthat y citizensbepermittedfullandequalparticipationintheir %  government.Furthermore,thisnormisdefinedwithaspecificity  l" comparabletotheinternationallawnormsrecognizedasactionable }"$ atthefoundingofournation.Itsrequirementsareclearand )$& definite, #  47      ׀andthefailuretofulfillitcanindeedthreaten %p!( seriousconsequencesininternationalaffairs,asevidencedbythe e pressureexertedbytheUnitedStatesandothergovernmentsonnon  democraticregimesabroad.Cf.Case11.204,InterAm._//C.H.R._//Ԁ727, X _//OEA_///_//ser.L_///V/II.118,doc.5rev.2(2003)(findingbyInterAmerican i  CommissionofHumanRightsthattheUnitedStates"isresponsible   forviolationsofPetitioners'rightsunderArticlesIIandXXof  \  theAmericanDeclarationbydenying[citizensoftheDistrictof m  Columbia]aneffectiveopportunitytoparticipateintheirfederal   legislature"). `   ` Becausetherighttoequalpoliticalparticipationbyall q  citizensmeetsalloftheelementsrequiredofanenforceablenorm  ofcustomaryinternationallaw,thereshouldbenoquestionthatit d isincorporatedintothedomesticlawoftheUnitedStatesas u federalcommonlawtobeappliedbythefederalcourts.See_//Sosa_//, ! 124_//S.Ct_//.at276465.Moreover,itisclearthattheUnitedStates h isinviolationofthatnormwithrespecttotheresidentsof y PuertoRico.Werewetoavoidthisconclusion,wewouldnotjust %  be"_//avert[ing_//][our]gazeentirelyfrom[an]internationalnorm  l" intendedtoprotectindividuals,"id.,butwouldbeplacingour }"$ headsintothesandtoavoidseeingtheobvious. )$&  ` Inmyview,themajority'srefusaltoincorporatethe %p!( clearandspecificcustomaryinternationallawnormrequiringequal '#* politicalparticipationintofederalcommonlawcontravenesboth -)$, thespecificlanguageoftheConstitution,seeU.S.Const.art.VI, e cl.2,andrelevantSupremeCourtdoctrine,see_//Sosa_//,124_//S.Ct_//.at  276162. X  ` Themajority'sconcernthatcustomaryinternationallaw i  isa"diffuseandoftenhighlyuncertainbodyofnorms,"maj.op.   at13,iftrueregardingotherareasofcustomaryinternational  \  law,iscertainlynottrueoftherighttovote,asdemonstrated m  above.Moreover,themajority'scontentionthat"[_//i]f_//Ԁthereexists   aninternationalnormofdemocraticgovernment,itisatalevelof `  generalitysohighastobeunsuitableforimportationinto q  domesticlaw,"maj.op.at14,missesthepoint.Theinternational  normatissuehereisnot"democraticgovernment"generally,but d therighttovoteinequalitywithallothercitizensofone's u nation.Themajoritystudiouslyfailstoprovideanyexample,in ! anydemocraticcountry,inwhichcitizensareclassifiedinto h votingandnonvotingcategories.ItsreferencetoGreatBritain y asanexampleofdiversityindemocraticgovernmentsinwhich %  citizensneithervotefortheheadofstatenordirectlyforthe  l" governingparty,hardlyprovesthepointorevenstandsforthe }"$ propositionthatcustomaryinternationallawtoleratesunequal )$& votingrightsamongcitizensofthesamecountry.InGreat %p!( Britain,themonarchisonlysymbolicallytheheadofstate. '#* Furthermore,Iwasundertheimpressionthatin1776werejected -)$, GreatBritain'sviewsregardingcolonialgovernment. *t&.  C.Remedy e   ` # XVXXXV/#Wecommencewiththepremisethatplaintiffsappellants - havetherighttoequalpoliticalparticipationascitizensofthe t UnitedStates,pursuanttocustomaryinternationallawandthe   _//ICCPR_//,bothofwhicharebindingontheUnitedStates.As 1  observed,theUnitedStatesiscurrentlyinviolationofthese  x  requirements.GiventhefailurebytheUnitedStatestotakesteps $  torectifythisclearviolationofinternationallaw, 5  notwithstandingitsagreementtodoso,see,e.g.,Exec.OrderNo. |  13,107,63Fed.Reg.68,991(Dec.10,1998),thiscourtoughtto ( takesuchmeasuresasarenecessarytoprotectadiscretegroupof 9 citizensthatiscompletelyunderthesovereigntyoftheUnited  States.SeeUnitedStatesv._//Carolene_//ԀProds.Co.,304U.S.144, , 152n.4(1938)("[_//P]rejudice_//Ԁagainstdiscreteandinsular = minoritiesmaybeaspecialcondition,whichtendsseriouslyto  curtailtheoperationofthosepoliticalprocessesordinarilytobe 0 reliedupontoprotectminorities,and...maycallfor A  correspondinglymoresearchingjudicialinquiry.").  "  ` Although,assumingthe_//ICCPR_//Ԁisnotselfexecuting,we "4$ cannotorderlegislativeactiontobringtheUnitedStatesinto E$& compliancewithitsinternationalobligations,astopgapmeasure %!( isavailableandisjustifiedbyplaintiffsappellants' '8#* predicament.TheDeclaratoryJudgmentAct,28U.S.C.2201(a), I)$, providesthat: *&. 8 ` Inacaseofactualcontroversywithinits e jurisdiction...anycourtoftheUnited ; States,uponthefilingofanappropriate  pleading,maydeclaretherightsandother  legalrelationsofanyinterestedparty X seekingsuchdeclaration,whetherornot . furtherreliefisorcouldbesought. @  ]i ` x` x  ` UnderthisAct,thiscourtmaydeclaretherights,under   theICCPRandcustomaryinternationallaw,oftheUnitedStates  \  citizensresidinginPuertoRico."Itisemphaticallytheprovince m  anddutyofthejudicialbranchtosaywhatthelawis."Marbury   v.Madison,5U.S.(1Cranch)137,177(1803).TheActprovides `  thecourtswiththeoptionof"declar[ing]therightsandother q  legalrelationsofanyinterestedpartyseekingsuchdeclaration,  whetherornotfurtherreliefisorcouldbesought."28U.S.C. d 2201(a)(emphasisadded),particularlywhenadeclaratoryjudgment u "willserveausefulpurposeinclarifyingandsettlingthelegal ! relationsinissue...."AetnaCas.&Sur.Co.v.Quarles,92 h F.3d321,325(4thCir.1937)(internalquotationmarksomitted). y  ` Thepowertoprovidedeclaratoryreliefextendstothe %  powertoclarifyandsettlethelegalrelationsbetweentheUnited  l" StatesandtheinhabitantsofterritoriesunderFederal }"$ administration.SeeUnitedStatesv.Sanchez,992F.2d1143,1150 )$& 53(11thCir.1993),rev'dinpartonothergrounds,3F.3d366 %p!( (11thCir.1993)(determiningthatPuertoRicoisnotaseparate '#* sovereignforpurposesofthedoublejeopardyclause);seealso -)$, UnitedStatesv.LopezAndino,831F.2d1164,116768(1stCir. *t&. 1987)(holdingthatPuertoRicoisaseparatesovereignfordouble e jeopardypurposes)."CourtsoftheUnitedStateshavefinal  authoritytointerpretaninternationalagreementforpurposesof X applyingitaslawoftheUnitedStates."Judav.UnitedStates, i  13Cl.Ct.667,678(Cl.Ct.1987).     ` 1.Redressability   \   ` Thistypeofdeclaratoryreliefinthepresentcaseis $  fullyconsistentwiththeDeclaratoryJudgmentAct,becauseitis 5  substantiallylikelythatadeclarationbythisCourtthatthe |  UnitedStatesisinviolationofinternationallawwillresultin ( someformofrelieftotheUnitedStatescitizenswhoresidein 9 PuertoRico.SeeUtahv.Evans,536U.S.452,463464(2002).In  EvanstheCourtheldthatthe"redressability"elementofstanding , underArticleIIIandtheDeclaratoryJudgmentAct #  48      ׀wasmetina = situationinwhichitwas"'substantiallylikely'"thatanon  party,coequalbranchofgovernmentwouldabidebyafederal 0 court'sinterpretationofthelaw"'eventhoughtheywouldnotbe A  directlyboundbysuchadetermination.'"Id.at460(quoting  " Franklinv.Massachusetts,505U.S.788,803(1992)).Standingwas "4$ establishedbecause"thepracticalconsequenceof[acourtorder E$& declaringacensustakingmethodunlawful]wouldamounttoa %!( significantincreaseinthelikelihoodthattheplaintiffwould '8#* obtainrelief[fromthePresident]thatdirectlyredressesthe e injurysuffered."Id.at464(collectingcasesinwhichstanding  hasbeenfoundundersimilarcircumstances). X  ` Similarly,in_//Juda_//,onecanfindanexampleofthe i  legislativebranchfollowingthejudiciary'sinterpretationof   internationallaw.Inthatcase,theinhabitantsoftheMarshall  \  IslandswhichtheUnitedStatesheldundertrusteeshipfromthe m  UnitedNationschallengedtheUnitedStates'attemptto   unilaterallyterminatetheTrusteeshipAgreementbywayof `  Presidentialproclamation,whichwouldhavecontravenedthe q  internationalagreementwiththeUnitedNations.TheClaimsCourt  declaredthattheTrusteeshipremainedineffectdejureasa d matterofinternationallaw,andsetforththeproceduretobe u followedbytheUnitedStatestoenditunderinternationallaw. ! Id.at67882.Althoughnotboundbythatjudicialroadmap, h Congressdidinfactfollowit.SeeJointResolutiontoApprove y the"CompactofFreeAssociation"betweentheUnitedStatesandthe %  GovernmentofPalau,Pub.L.No.99658,101,100Stat.3672  l" (1986);U.N.SecurityCounselRes.683(Dec.22,1990)(terminating }"$ TrusteeshipAgreement). )$&  XVXX XV ` Theparallelbetweenthesecasesandthepresent %p!( situationisselfevident.Judge_//Lipez_//'sattempttodistinguish '#* themonthebasisthat"thelikelihoodthatCongressandthe -)$, Presidentwouldfollowthecourt'sadvicewasnotjust *t&. 'substantial,'[inthosecases],itwasanearcertainty.... e [but][_//t]here_//Ԁisnothingapproachingsuchcertaintyhere,"supraat  28(Lipez,J.,concurring),isunconvincing.Withduerespect,it X istheconcurrencethatengagesinspeculation.Itseemstome i  thatthepredictionthatCongresswouldignoreadeclaratory   judgmentofthiscourtthattheUnitedStatesisnotincompliance  \  withitsinternationalobligationsissimplycontraryto m  experience._//Juda_//,whetherdictaornot,seesupraat27(Lipez,   J.,concurring),bearsthisout.Weliveinacountryoflawsin `  whichthenormisforallbranchesofgovernmenttorespectand q  complywiththedecisionsofthecourts,irrespectiveofhow  disputedtheymaybe.See,e.g.,Bushv.Gore,531U.S.98(2000). d IcannotcountenancethatCongressnor,forthatmatter,the u Executive,whichnegotiatedthe_//ICCPR_//Ԁandisthusintimately ! involvedandcommittedwouldignoreajudgmentofthiscourt h declaringthatthegovernmenthastakennoactiontocomplywithan y internationalobligationoftheUnitedStates,negotiatedand %  agreedtobytheExecutiveBranchwiththeadviceandconsentof  l" theSenate. }"$ # XVXXXV>t# ` Thedifficulty,complexity,orlengthoftheprocess )$& requiredfortheUnitedStatestocomplywiththelawoftheland %p!( isirrelevant,asithasneverbeenatestforredressabilityofa '#* wrong.Cf.Brownv.Bd.ofEduc.,349U.S.294,301(1955) -)$, (orderingracialdesegregationofschoolsoccur"withall *t&. deliberatespeed").TheU.S.citizensofPuertoRicohavewaited e overonehundredyearstoregainthevotingrightstheylostwhen  theU.S.invadedin1898.Adeclaratoryjudgmentwouldbeofsome X helpinspeedinguptheprocessofrecoveringtheserights.XVXX XV i   ` Regardless,however,oftheinappropriatenessand   unlikelihoodofCongressionalinactioninresponsetoajudicial  \  declarationoftherightsatissue,itcannotbedeniedthatwe m  lackauthoritytoorderCongresstoact.EvenifCongresschooses   tocontinueonitscourseofinaction,however,ourdeclarationof `  theplaintiffs'rightsunderthe_//ICCPR_//Ԁandcustomaryinternational q  lawwould,itself,provideaformofredress.Onthispoint,  FederalElectionCommissionv._//Akins_//,524U.S.11(1998),is d instructive.In_//Akins_//,agroupofvotersfiledanadministrative u complaintwiththeFederalElectionCommission("FEC")askingitto ! forceacertainpoliticalorganizationtocomplywiththereporting h requirementsforpoliticalactioncommittees("PACs").Seeid.at y 17.TheFECdismissedthecomplaintonthegroundthatthe %  organizationdidnotfitthedefinitionofaPACunderfederallaw.  l" Seeid.ThevotersappealedtheFEC'sdismissaloftheircomplaint }"$ andtheFECdefendedonthegroundthatthevoters'claimwasnot )$& _//redressable_//.Seeid.at19.TheFECarguedthat,evenifit %p!( misinterpretedthedefinitionofaPAC,itmaintainedtheoption '#* nottoactonthevoters'complaintasamatterofprosecutorial -)$, discretion.Seeid.at25.TheCourtdisagreedthattheFEC's *t&. discretionaryauthoritydeprivedthevotersofstanding.Seeid. e TheCourtexplainedthat,eventhoughtheFECmightultimately  declinetoactonthevoters'complaint,thevoters'injurywas X redressedbyassuringthattheFEC'sdiscretionarydecisionwas i  basedonacorrectunderstandingoftherelevantlaw.    ` Thiscasepresentsananalogouscircumstance.The  \  plaintiffshaveallegedthatCongresshasanobligationunderthe m  _//ICCPR_//Ԁandcustomaryinternationallawtofurthertheirrightto   voteforPresidentandthatsincethe_//ICCPR_//Ԁwasratified,Congress `  hastakennoactioninthisregard.ItispossiblethatCongress q  hasnotactedinaccordwithitsobligationsbecauseitisunaware  ofthem.Byissuingadeclarationstatingtheplaintiffs'rights d underthe_//ICCPR_//Ԁandcustomaryinternationallaw,thecourtcan u correctthispotentialmisunderstanding.Tobesure,anArticle ! IIIcourtcannotorderCongresstopassalaw,justasitcannot h ordertheexecutivetoprosecuteaparticularcase.But,asin y _//Akins_//,adeclarationcanensurethatthegovernmentactorin %  question(hereCongress)exercisesitsresponsibilitywitha  x" correctunderstandingoftherelevantlegalprinciples.Thisisno "$$ guaranteethattheCongresswillexerciseitsdiscretionfavorably 5$& totheplaintiff.But,as_//Akins_//makesclear,thereisnosuch %|!( requirement.Seeid.at25;Evans,536U.S.at464(statingthat '(#*  redressabilityisestablishedwherecourtaction"wouldamountto 9)$, asignificantincreaseinthelikelihoodthattheplaintiffwould e obtainthereliefthatdirectlyredressestheinjurysuffered").# XVXXXVw#    ` Ultimately,IsimplydonotagreewithJudge_//Lipez_//'s X readingoftheUtahand_//Juda_//cases,norwithhisconclusions i  regardingredressability.Obviously,theidealremedywouldbeif   wecouldorderthatplaintiffsbeallowedtovote.Barringa  \  findingthatthe_//ICCPR_//Ԁisselfexecuting,thatremedyisnot m  available.Continuednoncompliance,however,isacircumstance   thatcannotbeignoredanylonger.Thehonorandcredibilityof `  theUnitedStatesareatstake. q   ` Plaintiffsappellants,citizensoftheUnitedStates,are  deniedtherighttovotefortheofficesofPresidentandVice d Presidentofournationinviolationofthe_//ICCPR_//Ԁandcustomary u internationallaw.Further,itisanunquestionablefactthatthe ! UnitedStateshasnotmetitsobligationunderthe_//ICCPR_//Ԁtotake h stepstowardallowingthesecitizenstoexercisethisfundamental y right.See_//ICCPR_//Ԁart.2,para.2.Itmustbeassumedthatthe %  UnitedStateswillgiveeffecttoajudicialdeclarationstating  l" itsfailuretomeetitsobligationsinthisrespect,and,ata }"$ minimum,wemustensurethatanyfutureinactionbythegovernment )$& isnotbasedonaninaccurateunderstandingofitsobligations %p!( underinternationallaw. '#*  *t&. XVXX XV 0 ` 2."Embarrassment"v.Equalitye` (#` (#   ` Ifthemajorityweretoconcludethatplaintiffs - appellants'allegationsarenotsupportedbythelaw,althoughI t obviouslydisagreewiththisconclusion,Iwouldacceptitaspart   ofthejudicialprocessinwhichdiversityofopinionisafactof 1  judicialreview.However,Icannotaccept,andamhighlydisturbed  x  by,thepropositionespousedbythemajoritythattheoutcomeof $  thisappealshouldinanywaybedictatedbyitsperceptionthata 5  declarationbythiscourtthattheUnitedStateshasfailedto |  complywithitstreatyobligationsmight"embarrass"theUnited ( Statesand"couldbetrumpetedaspropagandaininternational 9 bodiesandelsewhere."Maj.op.at12.Thesestatementsare  worrisomebecausetheydemonstratea_//misperception_//Ԁoftheroleof , federalcourtsvisvistreatiesandotherinternationallaw.The = interpretationoftreatiesandinternationallaw,asanintegral  partofthelawoftheland,isa_//nondelegable_//Ԁjudicialdutyand 0 functionthatcannotbeavoidedbythiscourt.Indeed,federal A  courtsarethefinalinterpretersoftreaties.# XVXXXV#_//Juda_//,13Cl.Ct.at  " 678.XVXX XVԀTheUnitedStatesisjustanotherpartyinthiscase,asit "4$ isinthethousandsthatareheardbeforethefederalcourts E$& throughoutthenation.Ithasnohigherstandingthananyother %!( party,andisentitledtonohigherprivilegethanprivate '8#* citizens.ItispreciselybecausethecourtsoftheUnitedStates I)$, areperceivedbytheworldatlargeasupholdingthesehigh *&. standardsofimpartialitythatadeclarationexposingthe e government'sfailuretocomplywithitstreatyobligations,rather  than"embarrassing"theU.S.,asthemajoritysuggests,wouldhave X ahighlysalutaryeffectbyshowingtheworldthatwepracticewhat i  wepreach:theruleoflaw.    ` Embarrassmentindeed!TheU.S.shouldbeembarrassedat  \  itsdenyingequalrightstofourmillionofitscitizensinthis m  dayandage.Thatfactitselfparticularlyinlightofthe   government'sintenseencouragementofdemocraticreforminother `  nationsandpurportedcommitmenttointernationalinstrumentsthat q  guaranteeequalpoliticalparticipationbyallcitizenscouldbe  "trumpetedaspropagandaininternationalbodiesandelsewhere." d Maj.op.at12.Wasit"embarrassment"thatfinallyreversed u _//Plessy_//?Ifembarrassmentiswhatittakestogiveequalrightsto ! theUnitedStatescitizensofPuertoRico,maybeadoseis h appropriate. y # XVXXXVS#@( III.  %   ` Therecomesapointwhenthecourtsmustinterveneto  " correctagreatwrong,particularlyoneoftheirowncreation, "4$ becausethepoliticalbranchesofgovernmentcannotorwillnot E$& act.See,e.g.,Brownv.Bd.ofEduc.,347U.S.483.Thiscaseis %!( suchacrossroadsinhistory.Thiscourtcannotfurther"avertits '8#*  gaze,"_//Sosa_//,124_//S.Ct_//.at276465,withoutbecominganaccomplice I)$, tothismonumentalinjusticetoPuertoRico'snationally e disenfranchisedUnitedStatescitizens.    ` ShortlybeforetheCivilWar,AbrahamLincolnsaid:"As X Iwouldnotbeaslave,soIwouldnotbeamaster.Thisexpresses i  myideaofdemocracy.Whateverdiffersfromthis,totheextentof   thedifference,isnodemocracy."PresidentAbrahamLincoln,  \  AddresstoIndianaRegiment(Aug.1,19858)inIITheCollected m  WorksofAbrahamLincoln532(RoyP._//Basler_//Ԁed.,1953)(emphasis   removedfromoriginal).Substitute"colonized"for"aslave"and `  "colonizer"for"master"inthisquote,andwearewheretheUnited q  StatescitizensofPuertoRicofindthemselvestodayintheir  subservientpoliticalconditionwithintheUnitedStates'political d hegemony. u  ` Theopinionofthedistrictcourtshouldthereforebe ! reversed,andthecaseremandedfortheentryofadeclaratory h judgmenttotheeffectthattheUnitedStateshastakennostepsto y meetitsobligationsunderthe_//ICCPR_//Ԁandcustomaryinternational %  lawtograntequalvotingrightstoallcitizensintheelectionof  l" thePresidentandVicePresidentoftheUnitedStates.XVXX XV }"$  ` Epluribusunum.# XVXXXV#  )$& 8VXXdxXXd8y",US ,  (:!&),OYOY ` HOWARD,CircuitJudge , (dissenting). Theinabilityof e Americancitizensresidingintheterritoriestoparticipateinthe - electionofournation'sleadersisantitheticaltoour t foundationaldemocraticvalues.LikeJudgeTorruella,Judge_//Leval_//   oftheSecondCircuit #  49      ׀hasobservedthatexcludingtheseUnited 1  StatescitizensfromvotingforPresidentoftheUnitedStates  x  posesserious problemsoffairness,resentmentandimpaired $  reputationinthecommunityofnations._//Romeu_//v.Cohen,265F.3d 5  118,128(2ndCir.2001)(_//Leval_//,J.,writingseparately). |   ` Constructively,Judge_//Leval_//Ԁhasexplainedinsomedetail ( howlegislationcouldconstitutionallyprovideforparticipationby 9 PuertoRicansinPresidentialelections.Seeid.at12830;but  seeid.at13136(Walker,C.J.,disputingthatCongresshassuch , power,whilesharingtheconcern"thattheU.S.citizensresiding = intheterritoriesarenotbeingaffordedameaningfulvoicein  nationalgovernance.").Thereiseveryreasontoexpectthat 0 peopleofgoodwillservinginourlegislativeandexecutive A  brancheswouldseriouslyconsiderJudge_//Leval_//sproposalamong  " otheroptions,weretheplaintiffstosuccessfullyprosecutethis "4$ action.Butthisisnottoendorseanyparticularimplementation E$& ofvotingrights!thepreferencesofthepeopleofPuertoRicoare %!( ofparamountconsideration.Itisinsteadtoacknowledgethat '8#* therecouldbeapproachesbeyondwhatmanyhaveassumed. I)$,  ` Moregenerally,whileitmaybethattheConstitution e doesnotitselfconfervotingrightsuponcitizens,generationsof  Americanshaverightlytakenasanarticleoffaiththeirability X toparticipateintheselectionofournationalleadersthroughthe i  franchise._// #  50      _//ԀInseekingtoparticipateinthePresidential   election,theplaintiffsattempttoassertarightlongheldby  \  lawabidingUnitedStatescitizensofage,whetherathomeor m  abroad,solongastheyarenotresidentsofoneofthe   territories.Becausetheinterestrepresentedbytheplaintiffs' `  claimisofparamountimportancetoourdemocraticstructure,we q  oughttoapproachtheirclaimsearchinglyratherthanskeptically,_//  #  51      _//Ԁ  withtheunderstandingthatthecourtsdeclaratoryauthority d shouldbeexercisedtoitsoutermostlimitsiftheclaimis u otherwiseviable.WeshouldtakecarethattheclaimsofAmerican e citizenswhoassertabasicrighttoparticipateinthedemocratic  processdonotsufferstillbirththroughexactingapplicationof X _//redressability_//Ԁdoctrinesthat,asJudgeTorruellahaspointedout, i  havesignificantflexibility.    ` Turningdirectlytotheplaintiffs'treatyclaim,evenif  \  therewereapersuasiveargumentnottoacceptJudge_//Torruella_//'s m  reasoning,thecasestillshouldnotendatthisstage.Thisis   becauseplaintiffs'claimunderthe_//ICCPR_//Ԁshouldnotberesolvedon `  amotionunderFed.R.Civ.P.12(b)(6)withoutanopportunityfor q  recorddevelopment._// #  52      _//   ` TheUnitedStatessignedthe_//ICCPR_//Ԁin1977.Amongits d provisions,Article25provides: u  0 ` Everycitizenshallhavetherightand ! opportunityandwithoutunreasonable  restrictionstotakepartintheconductof h publicaffairs,directlyorthroughfreely > chosenrepresentativesandtovoteandtobe y electedatgenuineperiodicelectionswhich O shallbebyuniversalandequalsuffrageand %  shallbeheldbysecretballot,guaranteeing ! thefreeexpressionofthewillofthe  l" electors.!B#` `   999_//U.N.T.S._//Ԁ171(openedforsignatureDec.19,1966).TheSenate S#% didnotprovideitsadviceandconsentforthe_//ICCPR_//Ԁuntil1992.In $ ' consentingtotheTreaty,theSenateaddedadeclarationstating &F") OY\ e   thatthe_//ICCPR_//Ԁwillbe"nonselfexecuting," #  53      ׀asrequestedbythe  executive.S.Exec.Rep.No.10223at23(1992)("[_//T]he_//ԀUnited \ StatesdeclaresthattheprovisionsofArticles1through27ofthe X Covenantarenotselfexecuting."). #  54      ׀Fromthisdeclaration,one   mightconcludethattheplaintiffsdonothaveenforceablerights `  underArticle25oftheTreaty.d #  55      ׀Butinmyview,separationof  \  powersconsiderationspreventacourtfromrelyingexclusivelyon   theSenate'sdeclarationtodeterminethatatreatyisnonself d  executing.TheSupremacyClauseandArticleIIIrequireacourtto `  examineindependentlytheintentionsofthe_//treatymakers_//Ԁtodecide   ifatreaty,byitsownforce,createsindividuallyenforceable h rights.WhiletheSenate's_//preratification_//Ԁviewonthematteris  entitledtosomeweight,otherfacts,includingextrinsicevidence \ concerningtheTreaty'snegotiationhistoryandinternational X practiceundertheTreaty,arerelevant.Becausetheprocedural   postureofthiscasehasprecludedintroductionofevidence `  regardingthe_//ICCPR_//'snegotiationandenforcementhistory,itis  \  prematuretodismissonthegroundthattheTreatydoesnotprovide   theplaintiffswithenforceablerights. d   ` TheSenate'spracticeofdeclaringcertaintreatiestobe `  nonselfexecutingisofrelativelyrecentorigin. #  56      ׀SeeL._//Henkin_//,   ForeignAffairsandtheUnitedStatesConstitution,20102(2ded. h 1996).Thispracticehasbecomecommonplaceespecially,although d notexclusively,forhumanrightstreaties,seeL._//Damrosch_//,The  RoleoftheUnitedStatesSenateConcerning"SelfExecuting"and l "NonSelfExecuting"Treaties,67ChiKentL.Rev.515,51926 h (1991),andhasbeenacceptedinsomequarters,seeRestatement  (Third)ofForeignRelationsLawoftheUnitedStates303,_//cmt_//. p  d(1986)(statingthatthereisnoaccepteddoctrineindicating  limitsontheconditionsthattheSenatemayimposeonits \ provisionofconsent),but"withoutsignificantdiscussion," X _//Henkin_//,ForeignAffairs,supraat202.    ` Unlikeinsomeothercountries,treatiesbecomepartof `  thefabricofourdomesticlawuponratification.CarlosManuel  \  _//Vzquez_//,TreatyBasedRightsandRemediesofIndividuals,92_//Colum_//.   L.Rev.1082,1111(1992)(describingtheruleunderBritishlaw d  thatatreatydoesnothavedomesticeffectuntilParliamentpasses `  implementinglegislation).Thisisadirectresultofthe   SupremacyClause,whichmakestreatiespartofthe"supremelawof h theland"alongwithfederalstatutes,federalcommonlaw,andthe d Constitutionitself.U.S.Const.art.VI.,cl.2. #  57      ׀The  Constitution'sgrantofpowertothefederaljudiciaryalso l recognizesthattreatiesconstitutedomesticlaw.Underarticle h III,2,cl.1,thefederaljudicialpower"_//extend[s_//]toall  Cases,inLawandEquityarisingunder...Treaties."The p  OY_    expresslanguageoftheConstitutionthusprovidesthatatreaty  ratifiedbythePresident,aftertheSenate'sadviceandconsent, \ seeU.S.Const.art.II,2,cl.2,ispartofourdomesticlaw X andmaybeenforcedinadomesticcourt.    ` Thisisnotahistoricalaccident,forincorporating `  treatiesintothedomesticlawwasoneofthepurposesfordrafting  \  theConstitution.UndertheArticlesofConfederation,theStates   werereluctanttoenforcetreatiesenteredintobythenational d  government.InproposingtheVirginiaPlanastheworkingdraft `  forthenewConstitution,EdmundRandolphcomplainedaboutthe   Articles'powerlessnessto"causeinfractionsoftreaties...to h bepunished."1M._//Farrand_//,TheRecordsoftheFederalConvention d of178719(rev.ed.1996).JamesMadisonsharedthisview.He  claimedthat"experience[undertheArticles]hadevidenceda l constanttendencyintheStatesto...violatenationalTreaties h ...."Id.at164.TheConstitutionsoughttoremedythis  tendencybymakingtreaties"thesupremelawoftheland." p   ` TheFramers'intentiontoestablishtreatiesaslaw, !l" withoutfurtherlegislativeaction,isdemonstratedbyseveralof "$ theproposalsthattheConstitutionalConventionrejected.One t$& suchproposalwouldhaverequiredthattreatiesbesanctionedby  &p!( legislationiftheyweretohave"theoperationoflaws."J. '#* Madison,NotesofDebatesintheFederalConventionof1787520 x)$, (1966ed.).Anotherwouldhaveestablishedtwotypesoftreaties: $+t&. onerequiringonlyactionbythePresidentandtheSenate,anda  secondrequiringadditionalactionbytheHouseofRepresentatives. \ See2_//Farrand_//,supraat394.Therejectionoftheseproposals X illustratestheFramers'intentionthatalltreatiesconstitutelaw   undertheSupremacyClause._// #  58      _//ԀAsJamesWilsonstated:"[The `  SupremacyClause]willshowtheworldthatwemakethefaithof  \  treatiesaconstitutionalpartofthecharacteroftheUnited   States;thatwesecure[their]performancenolongernominally,for d  thejudgesoftheUnitedStateswillbeenabledtocarry[them] `  intoeffect."2J.Elliot,TheDebatesintheSeveralState   ConventionsontheAdoptionoftheFederalConstitution490(2ded. h 1881). d  ` Theexpectationthattreatieswouldbecomeoperativeas  domesticlawuponratificationisalsoexpressedintheFederalist l PapersandtheratificationdebateswithintheStates.For h example,inFederalistNo.22,AlexanderHamiltonexplainedthat  "thetreatiesoftheUnitedStates,tohaveanyforceatall,must p  beconsideredaspartofthelawoftheland.Theirtrueimport, !l" asfarasrespectsindividuals,must,likeallotherlaws,be "$ ascertainedbyjudicialdeterminations."TheFederalistNo.22at t$& 150_//(C_//._//Rossiter_//Ԁed.1961).Similarly,attheNorthCarolina  ratifyingconvention,oneoftheConstitution'ssupporters \ explained: X `  Itwasnecessarythattreatiesshouldoperate   aslawsonindividuals.Theyoughttobe   bindinguponusthemomenttheyaremade.They `  involveintheirnaturenotonlyourown 6   rights,butthoseofforeignersandshouldbe  \  protectedbythefederaljudiciary.  2  `  4Elliot,supraat158.Eventhoseopposingratificationshared   inthisview."_//Brutus_//,"incriticizingArticleIII,statedthat :  hecould"readilycomprehendwhatismeantbydecidingacase 6 underatreaty.Forastreatieswillbethelawoftheland,  everypersonwhohasrightsorprivilegessecuredbyatreaty, > willhavetheaidofcourtsinrecoveringthem."16J._//Kaminski_// : andG._//Saladino_//,TheDocumentaryHistoryoftheRatificationof  theConstitution172(1984). B  ` Onecommentatorhassummarizedthefoundingperiod > evidenceasfollows:   0 ` [The]historicpatternsofexpectation F ! demonstratethatmostFramersintendedall !l" treatiesimmediatelytobecomebindingon !B# thewholenation,_//superadded_//Ԁtothelawsof "$ theland;tobeobservedbyeverymemberof #% thenation,tobeappliedbythecourts t$& wheneveracauseofactionarosefromor J% ' toucheduponthem;andtoprevailoverand  &p!( _//preemept_//Ԁanyexistingstateaction.In &F") theseways,atleast,alltreaties(tothe '#* extentoftheirgrants,guarantees,or (#+ obligations)weretobeselfexecuting.x)$,` L` L  SeeJ._//Paust_//,SelfExecutingTreaties,82Am.J._//Int'l_//ԀL. $+t&.  +J'/ 760,764(1988)._// #  59      _//   ` ThisunderstandingquicklyfounditswayintotheUnited \ StatesReports.SeeWarev._//Hylton_//,3U.S.(3Dall.)199(1796). X Wareconcernedthe1783PeaceTreatywithGreatBritain.The   plaintiff,aBritishcitizen,claimedthathewasowedadebtbya `  Virginiacitizen.Seeid.at199201.Thedefendantclaimedthat  \  thedebthadbeenextinguishedbya1777Virginiastatute.Seeid.   Thetreatyprovided,however,that"creditors,oneitherside,shall d  meetwithnolawfulimpedimenttotherecoveryoffullvalueofall `  bonafidedebtsheretoforecontracted."Id.at277.TheBritish   plaintiffarguedthatthistreatyprovisionoverrodetheVirginia h statuteandreinstatedthedebt.Seeid.at209. d  ` Justice_//Iredell_//,sittingasacircuitjudge,considered  whetherthetreatywasoperativewithoutthepassageofany l additionaldomesticlegislation.Herecognizedthat,underthelaw h ofGreatBritain,atreatywouldnotbeoperativedomestically  withoutimplementinglegislation,butthatthepurposeofthe p  SupremacyClausewastodifferentiatetheeffectoftreatiesunder !l"  Americanlaw: "$ ` 0 ` Underthisconstitution,therefore,sofaras   atreatyconstitutionallyisbinding,upon  principlesofmoralobligation,itisalso,by \ thevigorofitsownauthority,tobeexecuted 2 infact.Itwouldnototherwisebethe X supremelaw,inthenewsenseprovidedfor, . anditwassobefore,inamoralsense....   [_//W]hen_//Ԁtheconstitutionwasratified,thecase   astothetreatyinquestionstooduponthe `  samefooting,asifeveryactconstitutingan 6   impedimenttoacreditor'srecoveryhadbeen  \  expresslyrepealed,andanyfurtheract  2  passed,whichthepublicobligationhadbefore   required,ifarepealalonewouldnothave   beensufficient.d ` x` x e` Id. `   ` ThecasewenttotheSupremeCourt,whereeachJustice   wrotehisownopinion.NoJusticedisagreedwithJustice_//Iredell_//'s h explanationofthedomesticeffectofthetreaty.Seeid.at237 d ("[_//E]very_//ԀtreatymadebyauthorityoftheUnitedStates,shallbe  superiortotheconstitutionandlawsofanyindividualstate... l .")(Chase,J.).Warethussupportstheviewthat,whenatreaty h createsobligationsfavoringanindividual,theindividualmay  enforcetheobligationdirectlyinaUnitedStatescourt,even p  thoughthereisnoimplementinglegislation. #  60      ׀Inotherwords, !l" underAmericanlaw,treatiescanbeselfexecuting.SeeHeadMoney "$ Cases,112U.S.580,59899(1884)("Atreaty...isalawofthe t$& landasanactofCongressis,wheneveritsprovisionsprescribea  &p!( rulebywhichtherightsoftheprivatecitizen...maybe  determined.Andwhensuchrightsareofanaturetobeenforcedin \ acourtofjustice,thatcourtresortstothetreatyforaruleof X decisionforthecasebeforeitasitwouldtoastatute.").    ` Thesuggestionthatsometreatiesarenotselfexecuting `  firstappearedinFosterv._//Nielson_//,27U.S.(2Pet.)253(1829),  \  overruledinpartbyUnitedStatesv._//Percheman_//,32U.S.51(1833)   (reinterpretingtreatyinlightofnewevidenceregardingmeaning d  ofambiguousterm).There,atreatywithSpain,designedtoprotect `  privatelandgrants,providedthat"grantsshallberatifiedand   confirmed."Id.at309.WritingfortheCourt,ChiefJustice h Marshallconcludedthatthetreatywasnotselfexecutingbecause, d byitsterms,itdidnotestablisharightinanindividualbut  ratherplacedanobligationonthelegislativebranchtoact. l Seeid.at314.AsChiefJusticeMarshallexplained: h e0 ` Ourconstitutiondeclaresatreatytobethelaw  oftheland.Itisconsequentlytoberegarded  incourtsofjusticeasequivalenttoanactof p  thelegislature,wheneveritoperatesofitself, F ! withouttheaidofanylegislativeprovision. !l" Butwhenthetermsofthestipulationimporta !B# contract,whereeitherofthepartiesengagesto "$ performaparticularact,thetreatyaddresses #% itselftothepolitical,notthejudicial t$& department;andthelegislaturemustexecutethe J% ' contractbeforeitcanbebecomearuleforthe  &p!( court.&F")` `  Id. (#+  ` TheFosterrulethatcertaintreatiesarenonself N*%- executingisajudiciallycreateddoctrine.See_//Henkin_//,The +J'/ GhostofSenator_//Bricker_//,supraat347.Underthisdoctrine,a  courtmustascertainwhethertheinstrumentwasintendedbyits \ makerstoestablishdirectlyenforceablerights,oronlytoimpose X anobligationononeofthepoliticalbranches.See_//Frolova_//v.   UnionofSovietSocialistRepublics,761F.2d30,373(7thCir. `  1985)("Whetheratreatyisselfexecutingisanissueforjudicial  \  interpretation.");Restatementsupraat111,_//cmt_//.h("Whetheran   agreementistobegiveneffectwithoutfurtherlegislationisan d  issuethatacourtmustdecidewhenapartyseekstoinvokethe `  agreementaslaw.").Suchanintentistobegleanedfromthe   treaty'stermsandhistory.See_//Diggs_//v.Richardson,555F.2d841, h 851(D.C.Cir.1976)(statingthat,"[_//i]n_//Ԁdeterminingwhethera d treatyisselfexecutingcourtslooktotheintentofthesignatory  partiesasmanifestedbythelanguageoftheinstrument,andifthe l instrumentisuncertain,recoursemustbehadtothecircumstances h surroundingitsexecution").   ` Giventhisconstitutionalandjudicialhistory,acourt p  oughtnotquicklyconcludethattreatiesarenonselfexecuting. !l" Cf.UnitedStatesv.Li,206F.3d56,61(1stCir.2000)(enbanc) "$ (statingthatthereisapresumptionagainstselfexecuting t$& treatiesunderAmericanlaw). #  61      ׀Rather,acourtmustconductan  &p!( independentandsearchinginquiryintothetreaty'spurpose.And '#* onthispointadeclarationbytheSenatethatatreatyisnon  selfexecutingshouldnotbe_//dispositive_//. \  ` ThoseholdingacontraryviewtendtoregardtheSenate's X powertodeclareatreatynonselfexecutingtobeanadjunctof   itsgeneralpowertoconsenttoratification.SeeRestatement `  supraat303,_//cmt_//.d.ThereisnodoubtthattheSenatemay  \  hingeitsconsenttoratifyatreatyonareservation.See_//Haver_//   v._//Yaker_//,76U.S.(9Wall.)32,35(1869).Butareservationisa d  "unilateralstatement...whereby[oneparty]purportstoexclude `  ortomodifythelegaleffectofcertainprovisionsofthetreaty   intheapplicationtothatState."ViennaConventionontheLawof h Treaties,art.2(1)(d)(1969).Areservationthushasanactual d effectonthetermsofthetreaty.SeeM._//Glennon_//,The  ConstitutionalPoweroftheUnitedStatesSenatetoConditionIts l ConsenttoTreaties,67Chi.Kent.L.Rev.533,542n.63(1991) h (citingauthority).AndthereservationwillvitiatetheSenate's  consentifitstermsarenotincorporatedintothetreaty. p  See_//Henkin_//,ForeignAffairs,supraat18081. !l"  ` Anonselfexecutiondeclarationdiffersmateriallyfrom "$ areservation.SeeRestatement,supraat314,_//cmt_//.d.The t$& declarationisnotpresentedtotheotherinternationalsignatories  &p!( asarequestforamodificationofthetreaty'sterms.Rather,it '#* isdirectedprimarilytowardUnitedStatescourtstoexpress"the x)$, senseoftheSenate"thatthetreatyshouldnotbeinterpretedto $+t&. establishindividuallyenforceablerights.Astwoleading  commentatorshaveexplained,theSenatedoesnothavethepowerto \ bindacourttosuchdeclarations: X  0 ` [_//T]he_//ԀSenatelackstheconstitutionalauthority   todeclarethenonselfexecutingcharacterof   atreatywithbindingeffectonU.S.courts. `  TheSenatehastheunicameralpoweronlyto 6   consenttoratificationoftreaties,notto  \  passdomesticlegislation.Adeclarationis  2  notpartofatreatyinthesenseofmodifying   thelegalobligationscreatedbyit.A   declarationismerelyanexpressionofan d  interpretationorofapolicyorposition. :  U.S.courtsareboundbytheConstitutionto `  applytreatiesasthelawoftheland.They 6 arenotboundtoapplyexpressionsofopinion   adoptedbytheSenate(andconcurredinbythe  President).Thecourtsmustundertaketheir h ownexaminationofthetermsandcontextof > eachprovisioninatreatytowhichtheUnited d Statesisapartyanddecidewhetheritis : selfexecuting.Thetreatyislaw.The  Senate'sdeclarationisnotlaw.TheSenate  doesnothavethepowertomakelawoutsidethe l treatyinstrument.B` `  F S._//Riesenfeld_//Ԁ&F.Abbott,Foreword:SymposiumofParliamentary > ParticipationintheMakingandOperationofTreaties,67Chi.  KentL.Rev.293,29697(1991)._// #  62      _//Ԁ F !  ` Stateddifferently,theSenate'spowerunderArticleII  extendsonlytothemakingofreservationsthatrequirechanges \ toatreatybeforetheSenate'sconsentwillbeefficacious.A X declarationthatonlyhasdomesticeffectis,inreality,an   attempttolegislateconcerningtheinternalimplementationofa `  treaty.ButthepowertolegislateisnotgrantedtotheSenate  \  underArticleII.Legislationmayonlybeenactedthrough   bicameraladoptionandpresentationtothePresidentassetforth d  inArticleI.SeeINSv._//Chada_//,462U.S.919(1983). `  F ` TheonlycasethatIamawareofthataddressesasimilar   questionsupportsthisview.InPowerAuthorityofNewYorkv. h FederalPowerCommission,247F.2d538(D.C.Cir.),vacatedand d remandedwithinstructionstodismissasmoot355U.S.64(1957),  theUnitedStatesenteredabilateraltreatywithCanadaconcerning l theuseoftheNiagaraRivertoproducepoweralongtheUnited h States/Canadaborder.Seeid.at539.Initsresolution  consentingtothetreaty,theSenateincludedareservationwhereby p  theUnitedStatesreservedtherighttoredevelopitsportionof !l" thepowergeneratedontheriveronlythroughanactofCongress. "$ Seeid.TheUnitedStatesandCanadaagreedthatthereservation t$& onlyconcernedAmericandomesticlawanddidnotrequireany  &p!( changestothetreaty.Seeid.at54041. '#*  ` ThePowerAuthorityoftheStateofNewYorksoughta  licensefromtheFederalPowerCommissiontousetheNiagaraRiver \ forthestate'santicipatedpowerproject.Seeid.at539.The X Commissiondismissedtheauthority'slicenseapplication,   contendingthattheSenate'sreservationprecludeditfromgranting `  suchalicensebecausefederallegislationwasrequired.Seeid.  \  at53940.    ` TheD.C.Circuitheldthatthereservationwas d  ineffectivebecauseitinvolvedonlyUnitedStatesdomesticlaw. `  Forthereservationtobebindingonthejudiciary,thecourt   reasoned,ithadtoconstituteanactualpartofthetreaty: h  0 ` Atruereservationwhichbecomesapartofa d treatyisonewhichalterstheeffectofthe : treatyinsofarasitmayapplyintherelations  oftheStatewiththeotherStateorStates  whichmaybepartiestothetreaty.Itcreates l adifferentrelationshipbetweentheparties B andvariestheobligationsoftheparties h proposingit.>` `   Id.at541.Becausethereservationwasmerelyanexpressionof  theSenate'sviewofdomesticpolicyithadnodomesticeffect. F ! Seeid._// #  63      _// !B#  ` Thenonselfexecutiondeclarationinthe_//ICCPR_//Ԁisa  similarexpressionoftheSenate'sdesireconcerningapurely \ domesticissue.LikethereservationinPowerAuthority,the X declarationwasnotintendedtomodifytheTreatytermsinanyway.   Thus,itlacksbindingforce.Cf.FourteenDiamondRingsv.United `  States,183U.S.176,17880(holdingthataSenateresolution  \  purportingtointerpretatreatyadoptedafterratificationwasnot   binding).Ofcourse,theSenate'sviewisrelevant.Cf.United d  Statesv.Stuart,489U.S.353,36667(1989)(statingthatSenate `  _//preratification_//Ԁdebateisrelevanttodeterminingthemeaningof   atreaty).But,intheend,whetherthereisaprivaterightof h actionunderthe_//ICCPR_//Ԁshouldbedecidedonthebasisofthe d totalityofavailableevidence.See_//Volkswagenwerk_//ԀA.G.v.  _//Schlunk_//,486U.S.694,700(1988)("Treatiesareconstruedmore l liberallythanprivateagreements,andtoascertaintheirmeaning h wemaylookbeyondthewrittenwordstothehistoryofthetreaty  negotiations,andthepracticalconstructionadoptedbythe p  parties.");seealso_//Societe_//Ԁ_//Nationale_//Ԁ_//Industrielle_//Ԁ_//Aerospatiale_//v. !l" U.S.Dist.Ct.fortheS.Dist.ofIowa,482U.S.522,534(1987)  (statingthattreatyinterpretationbeginswiththetextofthe \ treaty,butthatthetreaty'shistoryandpracticalconstruction X adoptedbythepartiesarerelevant);AirFrancev.Saks,470U.S.   392,400(1985)(statingthat"ininterpretingatreatyitis `  proper...torefertotherecordsofitsdraftingand  \  negotiation");IslamicRep.ofIranv.BoeingCo.,771F.2d1279,   1283(9thCir.1985)(explainingthatthemostimportantfactorin d  determiningwhetheratreatyisselfexecutingisthelanguage, `  purpose,andintentbehindthetreaty).    ` Giventhebroadjudicialinquiryrequiredtodetermineif h atreatyestablishesindividuallyenforceablerightsandthenon d bindingnatureoftheSenate'snonselfexecutiondeclaration,Ido  notthinkitpropertoaffirmthedismissalunderFed.R.Civ.P. l 12(b)(6).See_//Paust_//,Avoiding"Fraudulent"ExecutivePolicy,supra h at125962(suggestingthattextof_//ICCPR_//Ԁindicatesthatitwas  intendedtobeselfexecuting).Wedonothavebeforeus p  sufficientinformationconcerningthenegotiationhistoryofthe !l" _//ICCPR_//Ԁorthewayinwhichtheothersignatorieshaveenforcedit. "$ Withoutsuchinformation,welackthefullspectrumofsources t$& necessarytoevaluatetheextenttowhich,ifatall,the  &p!( plaintiffsmaypossessoneormoreenforceablerightsunderthe '#*  Treaty. x)$,  ` A"courtshouldbeespeciallyreluctanttodismissonthe   basisofthepleadingswhentheassertedtheoryofliabilityis \ novelorextreme,sinceitisimportantthatnewlegaltheoriesbe X exploredandassayedinthelightoftheactualfactsratherthan   apleader'ssuppositions."5AWright&Miller,FederalPractice& `  Procedure,1357;seealsoDoev.Walker,193F.3d42,46(1st  \  Cir.1999)("Ourpreferenceforabetterrecordiswellsupported   and...isonewhichweareentitledtorequireforreasonsof d  prudence.").WhenlookedatthewayIseeit,thissuitpresents `  anovelclaimconcerningtherighttovote!arightwhich,asI   havesaid,hasspecialsignificance.See_//Wesberry_//v.Sanders,376 h U.S.1,17(1964)(statingthat"norightismorepreciousina d freecountrythanthatofhavingavoiceintheelectionofthose  whomakethelaws,underwhich,asgoodcitizens,wemustlive"). l Giventhesensitivenatureofthedisputeanditsimplications,I h wouldpermitthepartiestodeveloparecordconcerningthe_//ICCPR_//._// #  64      _//Ԁ   `