What I appreciate about this discussion, is that it is being conducted by people who demonstrate a great deal of concern for the issues involved - both the subtleties and the sweep of the issue. I believe this is appropriate (though admittedly tiring) because, in legal matters, a great deal often hinges on a comma, or the inclusion/exclusion of the word "not," or other such maddening technicalities. Ergo Shakespeare's famous dictum about lawyers.

Consejo de Salud Playa de Ponce v. Rullan does provide federal precedent, and a framework for discussion and debate. However the Rullan ruling is not ultimately dispositive of a U.S. constitutional question or territorial status issue, since the U.S. Supreme Court is the court of ultimate (and binding) jurisdiction in both of these areas.

The language of the Rullan ruling did not grant full constitutional privileges to Puerto Ricans living on the island itself (as opposed to those living on the mainland). The Rullan court stated that "Congress today, thus, must afford Puerto Rico and the 4,000,000 United States citizens residing therein all constitutional guarantees."

However, as stated earlier, Puerto Rico is subject to the U.S. Congress' plenary powers under the territorial clause of Article IV, sec. 3, of the U.S. Constitution.U.S. Const. art. IV, § 3, cl. 2 ("The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States ..."). 

The Rullan ruling occurred in 2008. Three years later (in 2011), insular Puerto Ricans have neither U.S. Congresspersons nor U.S. Senators, and they cannot vote for a U.S. president. Therefore insular Puerto Ricans are not fully-enfranchised U.S. citizens, and they have not been extended "enjoyment of all rights and obligations under the U.S. Constitution."

It is thus clear that (in the exercise of its plenary powers) the U.S. Congress has chosen to ignore the Rullan ruling.
 
The operative word in this discussion (and I understand the frustration on both sides) is the usage of the word "must" in the Rullan ruling. As forceful as that word sounds, it was mis-used by the Rullan court, because the U.S. Congress clearly ignored it.  

Again...a lower federal court is not the court of ultimate jurisdiction for the issues addressed by Rullan. The U.S. Congress ignored it. Puerto Ricans (on the island) are not fully-enfranchised, and therefore do not have "enjoyment of all rights and obligations under the U.S. Constitution."

I hope this helps your process of consensus. I provided it in that spirit.