Need to scrap protectionism

At Issue: The people of these islands can’t perpetuate “special rights” such as limiting voting on land alienation to Chamolinians.

Our View: This unjustified sense of insecurity isn’t helping our cause to protect the rights of all US Citizens.

Since time immemorial, we have nurtured and strengthened the family unit as a foundation of the Northern Marianas Community. We treasure this time honored local tradition for generations, a tradition that is universally acceptable throughout the entire global village. In other words, no matter how it is dissected, the rights of our fellow man are basically the same; including the right to own property.

The point that we must never overlook in the recent US Supreme Court decision (Rice vs. Cayetano) is the supremacy of the US Constitution upon which was founded our mother country. The 15th Amendment to the US Constitution prohibits the denial of voting rights of US Citizens on basis of race. This amendment, in our view, reigns supreme over suspect provisions found in the Covenant Agreement.

We are fortunate though that the decision didn’t nullify implementation of programs for indigenous Hawaiians. In a sense, there’s a silver lining that allows for current programs to be carried out there or here. The only issue that was struck down pertains to the limiting of voting rights to indigenous Hawaiians in the election of the board of trustees of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs.

The recent approval of a legislative initiative here limiting voting on the land alienation provision is far from unique and different of the specific issued struck down by the US Supreme Court. It must be understood, too, that while such initiative may be rendered unconstitutional by the recent decision, it doesn’t, however, nullify limiting land ownership to indigenous Chamolinians.

All other peripheral issues such non-representation in the US Congress are fodder for rhetoric, discussion and proactive lobbying. These arguments aren’t going to change what the US Supreme decision effectively struck down. We do not have “special rights” and as such it would be well and good to explore whether the recent initiative still holds water.

While legal eagles wrestle over the applicability of the recent US Supreme Court decision insofar as the local legislative initiative is concerned, it would also do the indigenous people an ocean of good to discuss the pros and cons of retaining Article XII. And all must answer conflicting definition and interference on our individual rights to own and dispose personal property. In other words, if it is an individual property, why should a suspect legal provision be allowed to infringe on the rights of owners to dispose of it? Think about it. Si Yuus Maase`!