Absurd

Having read Mr. Bruce Jorgensen’s response, it was obvious that he was diverting and obscuring from the real issue his original response to Mr. Jesse Torres’ letter to the editor regarding our inability to vote in the United States presidential election.

Surprised to know that millions of Americans residing in the United States do not contribute to the federal tax system but still participate in the presidential electoral process, he now spends one paragraph trying to explain how felons are not allowed to vote and devotes his entire comments on Article 12, attacks trying to discredit me and the utter absurdity of a possible ghost writer.

Golly gee willikers, Bruce, my ghost writers are Fred, Doris and Arnold Ziffel from the TV series Green Acres. Didn’t the Secretary of the Treasury Geitner fail to pay tax along with other Cabinet appointments like Tom Daschle but didn’t have to go to jail?

Also, you suggest that felons in the United States are not allowed to vote. You may want you to revisit that statement since there are 13 states that allow felons to vote after they are released from prison. Maine and Vermont do not revoke a felon’s right to vote even if they are incarcerated.

In Wabol vs. Villacrusis one of the main arguments was that Article 12 violates the U.S. Constitution. The justices in making their determination relied in the “insular cases.” The court found that the interest of both the CNMI and the United States were at stake and that without alienation restrictions, the political union between the United States and the CNMI would not exist.

To even suggest Article 12 violates the U.S. Constitution is contradicted by plain terms of Section 805 of the Covenant, which exempts from constitutional requirements CNMI restrictions on land alienation.

The court further stated: “It would truly be anomalous to construe the equal protection clause to force the United States to break its pledge to preserve and protect NMI culture and property. The Bill of Rights was not intended to interfere with the performance of international obligations. Nor was it intended to operate as a genocide pact for diverse native cultures…Its bold purpose was to protect minority rights, not to enforce homogeneity.”

Some suggest repealing Article 12 because it is discriminatory or has not represented anything positive economically or purport that economic conditions today as a direct result of Article 12. This is totally absurd. What say these critics about the current economic crisis, housing foreclosures, bankrupted financial institutions, frozen credit crisis that millions of Americans are experiencing in the United States and the ill-effects that followed the Asian and European economic crises?

Many have failed to realize that Article 12 or land alienation laws never considered economic benefits as a primary factor. The intent was to preserve and protect social, family, and cultural values represented by the land, which is practiced in the CNMI, American Samoa, FSM, Marshalls, Palau, and even in Guam.

Considering that the total landmass for the CNMI, Guam, Palau, Marshall Island and the Federated States of Micronesia equates to 910 square miles or a landmass significantly smaller than Rhode Island, which is a little over 1,200 square miles, one would wonder why anyone would invest time in our Article 12 law.

For this matter we need only concern ourselves with the court’s ruling and the fact that many legal scholars from renowned educational institutions have examined and concurred with the court’s decision.

My “politico wannabe” aspirations are in order. I feel more than qualified to be a politico wannabe, having served along with my other Army brothers for a commander-in-chief that we cannot vote for. Along with my military service, I offer my education and my keen sense to articulate on issues concerning the CNMI. I don’t believe I have to pass muster with you since the ultimate decision rests upon the people of the CNMI.