The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
 
|
U.S. Federal courts uphold ban on white Americans owning land
Poast new message in this thread
Date: February 2nd, 2025 10:58 AM Author: .,.,...,..,.,.,:,,:,.,.,:::,....,:,..,:.:.,:.::, U.S. constitutional law is a fucking joke.
In the U.S. territory Saipan it is illegal to own land if you do not have st least 25% native blood.
Look at the explanations given by the court decision sided below.
As I understand it, the 9th circuit held that the ability to restrict land ownership based on race was a “fundamental right” which justified the law under the 14th amendment. I.e., maintaining bloodline is a fundamental right. |
 |
Date: February 2nd, 2025 11:10 AM Author: .,.,...,..,.,.,:,,:,.,.,:::,....,:,..,:.:.,:.::, We think it clear that interposing this constitutional provision would be both impractical and anomalous in this setting. Absent the alienation restriction, the political union would not be possible. Thus, application of the constitutional right could ultimately frustrate the mutual interests that led to the Covenant. It would also hamper the United States' ability to form political alliances and acquire necessary military outposts. Cf. Torres, 442 U.S. at 469-70, 99 S.Ct. at 2428-29. For the NMI people, the equalization of access would be a hollow victory if it led to the loss of their land, their cultural and social identity, and the benefits of United States sovereignty.[21] 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 our international obligations. Nor was it intended to operate as a genocide pact for diverse native cultures. See Laughlin, 2 U.Haw.L.Rev. at 386-88. Its bold purpose was to protect minority rights, not to enforce homogeneity. Where land is so scarce, so precious, and so vulnerable to economic predation, it is understandable that the islanders' vision does not precisely coincide with mainland attitudes toward property and our commitment to the ideal of equal opportunity in its acquisition. We cannot say that this particular aspect of equality is fundamental in the international sense. It therefore does not apply ex proprio vigore to the Commonwealth. Accordingly, Congress acted within its power in enacting sections 501(b) and 805 of the Covenant, and Article XII is not subject to equal protection attack. We hold that the appellate division of the district court for the Northern Mariana Islands did not err in upholding Article XII of the Commonwealth Constitution against PGI's constitutional challenge.[22] (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5674180&forum_id=2#48614677) |
Date: February 2nd, 2025 11:00 AM Author: .,.,...,..,.,.,:,,:,.,.,:::,....,:,..,:.:.,:.::, This is in a U.S. territory:
Under Article XII of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands Constitution, only persons with at least one-quarter Northern Marianas Chamorro or Carolinian blood (or a combination thereof) may acquire permanent and freehold interests in real property within the CNMI. This provision is designed to preserve the indigenous population’s limited land base and was explicitly approved by Congress in the Covenant establishing the CNMI’s union with the United States.
Citation: CNMI Constitution, Article XII (available at: N. Mar. I. Const. art. XII) |
|
Date: February 2nd, 2025 11:00 AM Author: The Box's Baby What year was that written out of curiosity (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5674180&forum_id=2#48614659) |
|
Date: February 2nd, 2025 11:02 AM Author: .,.,...,..,.,.,:,,:,.,.,:::,....,:,..,:.:.,:.::, 1978 (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5674180&forum_id=2#48614665) |
|
Date: February 2nd, 2025 11:01 AM Author: .,.,...,..,.,.,:,,:,.,.,:::,....,:,..,:.:.,:.::, 1. The Covenant and “Fundamental Rights” • Special Status of the CNMI The CNMI was formed through a Covenant (essentially an agreement) with the United States. Under this arrangement, most provisions of the U.S. Constitution apply. However, certain areas—deemed critical to preserving the CNMI’s culture and heritage—were carved out so that local constitutional provisions could supersede what might otherwise be standard constitutional rules in the states or other territories. • Wabol v. Villacrusis (9th Cir. 1992) In Wabol, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that CNMI land alienation restrictions (Article XII) did not violate the Equal Protection Clause. The court used a “fundamental rights” analysis, concluding that while equal protection is generally fundamental, the specific land ownership limits in the CNMI Constitution are themselves fundamental to the agreement by which the CNMI joined the United States. Because preserving indigenous land ownership was so central to the Covenant, the court found that Article XII was permissible. • Balancing Test In short, the Ninth Circuit recognized the CNMI’s compelling interest in preserving its limited land base for the indigenous population and concluded this interest outweighed the usual presumption against ancestry-based classifications. The Covenant functions akin to federal law, and Congress explicitly approved it. Therefore, the court deferred to that legislative judgment.
2. Racial Classification vs. Political Classification • Indigenous Peoples Context Although the CNMI provision is sometimes described as “race-based,” the courts have analogized it—at least in spirit—to permissible classifications involving certain indigenous groups, such as Native American tribes, where political or cultural considerations can allow laws that would be suspect if they were purely racial distinctions. • Local Self-Governance One reason this has not been struck down as “race-based discrimination” is that CNMI’s law is seen as preserving land for a politically and historically distinct community (the indigenous people of the Northern Marianas), as recognized in the Covenant.
3. Practical Effect and Why It Stands • Congressional Approval The CNMI’s restriction was explicitly agreed to by Congress when it approved the Covenant. Because of that, it is viewed as part of the foundational bargain by which the CNMI came under U.S. sovereignty. • Preservation of Culture and Land The overarching policy is to protect the CNMI’s small land base from being entirely sold off, ensuring the indigenous population retains a meaningful land interest. The courts have accepted this as a legitimate purpose tied to the CNMI’s unique circumstances. • Judicial Deference U.S. courts have generally deferred to this legislative (and covenant-based) judgment. Thus, while it might seem at odds with the usual reading of equal protection, the courts (so far) have not invalidated it. |
|
Date: February 2nd, 2025 11:07 AM Author: N709PS The Marianas were never a US territory. US seized them from Japan during WWII then administered them as part of UN trust territory. So if US agreed to admit them with this condition seems like it kind of like an Indian reservation. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5674180&forum_id=2#48614672) |
|
Date: February 2nd, 2025 11:13 AM Author: .,.,...,..,.,.,:,,:,.,.,:::,....,:,..,:.:.,:.::, If the U.S. had done it with a treaty then the treaty would arguably have equal force to the constitution itself. But there was no treaty. Just some sort of agreement. The insane point is that the federal courts clearly hold that the US Constitution does apply to this territory, but did some stupid gymnastics to interpret the 14th amendment restrictions is not prohibiting a law restricting land ownership based on race. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5674180&forum_id=2#48614681) |
|
Date: February 2nd, 2025 12:15 PM Author: Diane Rehm talking dirty (🐿️ ) We love those islands. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5674180&forum_id=2#48614921) |
|
Date: February 2nd, 2025 11:19 AM Author: 718-662-5970 not even mad, because "color blind application" of the "law" was always such a dumb pretense.
one of the FIRST things the homo sapiens brain does when it encounters another is to sort the other into some racial category, which is nearly as meaningful as sex and maturity and hostility / friendliness.
That our "law" pretends to ignore this is and always has been total fraudlies. Only way to purify law is to just own up to the idea that Mariana beaners know who they are and have special rights to their own land. Same with yankees in New England or whatever.
Resist Boomer desires to return to some MLK style fraud. Make race explicit in law, as it is in are brains |
|
Date: February 2nd, 2025 3:34 PM Author: Dunedain cowboy (🐾👣) traitors: let's define "rights" patriots: let's define "people" |
|
Date: February 2nd, 2025 2:42 PM Author: .,.,...,..,.,.,:,,:,.,.,:::,....,:,..,:.:.,:.::, (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5674180&forum_id=2#48615263) |