Source: http://derechointer.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/myfirst/id/1260/
Timestamp: 2018-07-21 19:41:11
Document Index: 553530806

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1', '§ 451', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 451', '§ 1', '§ 451', '§ 1', '§ 451', '§ 1', '§ 451', '§ 451', '§ 3', '§ 453', '§ 3', '§ 16', '§ 7', '§ 733', '§ 1', '§ 451', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 451', '§ 1', '§ 451', '§ 1', '§ 451', '§ 1', '§ 451', '§ 451', '§ 3', '§ 453', '§ 3', '§ 16', '§ 7', '§ 733']

G1a18.1 :: Fondo Documental Dr. Antonio Fernós Isern
Inicio Fondo Documental Dr. Antonio Fernós Isern G1a18.1
G1a18.1
870 ]80 FEDERAL REPORTER, 2d SERms
RUIZ ALtt£A v. UNITED STATES.
No. 4446.
I. Territories (i;::>5, 18
The Treaty (If Paris. ratified by S'l,;lIll
and the United 5i atc's at the con,·I,,·' .',
of the Spanish-:\lllericaJl \Var, wa~ ',.'
void insoiar as Spain purported the:
to cede Puerto Rico to the United St,,;, •.,
and the ~ekcti"e Service Act could, <"
made kg-ally applicaplc to Puerto Ri,
~eJcctive Service Act, § 1 et seq., 50 t: .'
c.A.i\ppendix, § 451 et seq.; Treaty b
twcen United States and Spain, 30 Stal
Chief .Judge, held thnt the act is legally ap­plicllble
10 Puerto Hieo:
Jucl!!,llIcnt nffirmcrl.
2. Territories C:=:> t8
Fact that Puerto Rico has no votin./{
represcntation in the Congress of th
United States, does not make the applic,l'
tion of the Selective Service Act to Puent,
Rico a violation of the basic constitutioll<l i
principle that equality of duties is bas('(l
on equality of rights. Selective Serviel'
. d, § 1 et seq., 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix. .
451 et seq.
3. "fer Itorles <PII
Con rcss has power to impose r,.m
pubory military sen'ice under a S, .,
crvice Act applicable, without di ,. . n .• ·
tion, to citizcns of the United Sl., fl',I-del'
in Puerto Rico as well a~ t J citizens
of the United States reside lit in other
territories and in the states of the union.
Sell'cti"e Ser"ice Act, § 1 et seq., 50 U.S.
eA.Appendix, § 451 et seq,
... Army and navy C!P20
Congress may draft aliens re-, .•
in the United States, though they 11\;' 'I
be entitled to vOle for election of
st'ntati\'cs in Congress,' or even
ticipate in state or municipal :-.
Selective Service Act, § 1 et ~, . ,_ .S.
C.A.Appendix, § 451 et seq.
5. Territories S=>6
The imposition of COlfl,"', I Y military
service on Puerto Rico :.. t ;\c Selective
Service Act is not to th ... ,ktriment of lhe
interests of the peopl, of l'uerto Rico ;,1101
to the sole benefit 0i the United Stall" III
violation of the ohiigation of the l'llIll'd
States, under'trea,I)', to give paramount· re-created,
rig11ls, we think it should 'be applied
here. The examination on this issue was,
as -might ;be exp<'cteo, substantially incon­clusi"\'
e; the verdict is, of course, otherwise
adequately :,u[1-portN:!. Laven(ler v. Kurn,
~upra, 327 U.S. 64\ 654, 66 S.Ct. 7-W, 90
L.Ed. 916.
United States Court of ApJl('als
March 10, 19"'JO.
[5] Dcfenuanfs final point is even nar­rower.
Piaintiff's counsel, in putting a long
hypothetical question to his chief medical
witness, asked what "was the cause" of
plaintiffs delirium. Defendant objected on
several grounds h~th "to the form" and to
the s11bstance of the question, anu some dis­cussion
was had as to the incorporated facts
hefore the question was admitted. On this
appeal the defendant now particularizes
his objection to lhe form af the question to
state that it called ,for what w"s in fact.
rather than what might have ·been, the
cause. This is peculiarly tht: type of obj 'c­tion
which under rule 4(), 'cleral Rules of
Civil Procell c, shPUld hay made
dear at the ime, inc uld nd un-doubtedly.;
have led to an immediate
correction whtltevt:r trror of fann may
ha ve ,been gelosed, [Ie fenqan qnnol en­traop
a suce S 11 'plaintiff Ib} thu reserving
its ·fire, 'Part ularly on a: atter as incon e­quential
as t i. \ thiHk ~fend;iflt re-cl'i,'
c<! a fair .al) and tiler nl.> caeon
(listurh the ju lent <>n " • r~1 st
Judgment a
Mljtucl Anjtel Rui7. Alicea was conviet<,d In
the United States DistrIct Court for the Di;;­triet
of Puerto ltieo, Chavez, J., of violating
the S<,lective Service Aet of 1948, alld he al)­pealed.
The ('.Qurt of Appeals, Magl'ueler,
RUIZ ALICEA v. UNITED STATES
Olt" B8 ISO F.2d 870
gard to the interests of the inhabitants of
Puerto Rico. Selective Service Act, § 1 et
seq., 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix, § 451 et seq.;
Treaty between United States and Spain, 30
Stat: 1754.
6. International law ~IO.45
Resolution of the American Commit­tee
on Dependent Territories in reference
to Puerto Rico did not prevent Congress
from making the Selecti\'e Service Act ap­plicabie
to Puerto Rico. Selective Serv­ice
Act, § 1 et seq., 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix,
§ 451 et seq.
J. Henandez Valle San Juan, P. R.
.(Agustin Perez Rodriguez, San Juan, P.
R, on brief), for appellant.
Pascual Amado Rivera, Assistant U. S.
Attorney, San Juan, P. R. (Francisco Pon­sa
Feliu, United States Attorney, San-­Juan,
P. R., on brief), for appellee
Before MAGRUDER, Chief Judge, and
MARIS and WOODBURY, Circuit
MAGRUDER, Chjef Judge.
Miguel Angel Ruiz 'Alicea, a native. and
resident of Puerto Rico, and as such ll. citi­zen
of Puerto Rico and of the Unih;4
States, was convicted and sentenced in
District of Puerto Rico for violation of
. the Selective Service Act of 1948, 62 Stat.
604, 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix, § 451 et seq.,
in that he knowingly failed and neglected
to present hiIl)self for and submit to regis­tration
as required by §§ 3 and 12(a) of
said Act, and of the President's Proclama­tion
No. 2799 thereunder, 13 F.R. 4173, 50
U.S.C.A.Appendix, § 453 note.
The only question before us is whether
the district court erred in denying ali
elaborate motion by the defendant that
the indictment be quashed and the' case dis­missed
"on the ground th.at this Court lacks
jurisdiction over the defendant because
the Selective Service Law is not legally
applicable to Puerto Rico." We hold that
the, motion was properly denied.
So far as the intention of Congress is
concerned, it is clear that the Selective
Service Act of 1948, by its express terms,
is applicable to Puerto Ri~o. See § 3 and
§§ 16(a) and (b). Appellant does not con­tend
[1] However, appellant argues at length
in his brief, though the point was not
specifically made in the motion to quash,
that the Treaty of Paris, 30 Stat. 1754, rati-fied
by Spain and the United States at th.e
conclusion of the Spanish-American War,
was and is null and void in so far' as Spain
purported therein to cede Puerto Rico to
the United States. As far back as 1901, in
De Lima v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 1, 21 S.Ct.
743, 45 LEd. 1041, the Supreme Court of
the United States recognized the validity
of the treaty in holding, 182 U.S. at page
1%, 21 S.Ct. at page 752 that "by the rati­fication
of the treaty of Paris the island
became territory of the United States, al­thougll
!lot an organized territory in the
technicaf sense of the word"; and since
then the cases dealing with the legislative
powers f Congress ov r Puerto Rico have
without exception proc t1etl on that basis.
Appellant could hard! expect us, as an.....\h')
ermediate ap IU't, to undertake '
to pv~t"tUJt; ~ b~lf- ry:o history. Be- 'S.
.des, the 11 ste . and uridical argu~;'~
m h' ap6etlant h advanced in this i
connectton have. Qeen _~I1_<!~m:i.!lSiI!g- \
demolisb~.!1.Jose L6pezBaralt, Is; ' ..J.
t e . ~-- eaty Null"Ab Initio" as to the: ,,:...f: .".~.
Cession of Puerto Rico?, 6 Revista de Der- l
e.cho, Legislaci6n y Jurisprudencia del Cole- \
gio de Abogad08 de ~uerto Rico, p. 60 I .
[2] It is further con~ded that Puerto
Rico has no vot~ representation in the
Congress of the U-uted tes; that it oc­cupies
a status ilJferior t9 that of "incor­porated"
territo . -as Hawaii and
Alaska, and thus co' n~ ~titled to enjoy .
equality of rights With tke states nor with
incorporated territories, which are on the
way to become states"; that therefore the
imposition of compulsory military service
on residents of Puerto Rico "is a violation
of the basic constitutional principle that
equality of duties is based on equality of
In People of Puerto Rico v. Shell Co."
1937, 302 U.S. 253, 261-262, 58 S.Ct. 167,
872 180 FEDERAL REPORTER, 2d SERIES
171. 82 L.Ed. 235, the Court said: "The Ct. 159, at page 161, 62 L.Ed. 349, L.R.A.
aim of the Foraker Act and the Organic 1918C, 361, Ann.Cas.1918B, 856, in which
Act was to give Puerto Rico full power of the Court said: "It may not be doubted
local self-determination, with an autonomy that the very conception of a just govern­similar
to that of the states and incorpo- ment and its du~y to' the citizen includes
rated territories. • • • The effect was the reciprocal obligation of the citizen to
to confer upon the territory many of the render military service in case of need, and
attributes of qua..ri sovereignty possessed by the right to compel it." See also United
the states-as, for example, immunity from States v. Henderson, 7 Cir., 1950, 180 F.2d.
suit without their consent. • • • By 711. That Puerto Rico now has no voting
those acts, the typical American govern- representation in Congress is of no sig­mental
structure, consisting of the three nificance in this connection; the same is
independent departments-legislative, ex- true of the District of Columbia, and it
ecutive and judicial-was erected. 'A is not suggested that Congress lacks paw-
I body politic'--a commonwealth-was cre- er to draft into the armed forces citizens ..
ated 31 Stat. 79, § 7, c. 191 [48 U.S.C.A. of the United States resident in the Dis-
§ 733]. The power of taxation, the power trict of Columbia. In fact, Congress may
to enact and enforce laws, and other char- draft aliens resident in the United States,
aeteristically Ioyemmentai wers were though they may not be entitled to vote
vested And, 10 far a att fa for election of representatives in Congress,
concerned, as we shbwq bt at' even to participate in state or muriici-respect
of the co - ~1 elections. United States v. Lamothe,
lative powers e . tir., 1945, 152 F.2d 340; Leonhard v.
quite; as v y, 1(J Cir., 1945, 151 F2d 409.
the state led.1.Jl:Qiilj~
eal autono
of the Orga
5, 1947, 61 at.
771-772, 775, mb, 7,
people of Pue ~ic& re
to choose their WI! ~~~~~;~r
suffrage-a righr V,
to a territor)' of the . td ~te;s.
is no reason to suppose tlllWlJ4oA~_!tIr­ary
process is now at an end. Certainly
nothing in the development to date would
preclude the possibility of ultimate s~te­hood
On the other hand, perhaps Puerto
Rico will eventually achiev:e some unique
status under the American flag more satis­factory
to its peo.ple than statehood.
[3,4] Whatever may be the future
status of Puerto Rico, it is clear that in
the present situation Congress has power
to impose compulsory military service un­der
an Act applicable, without discrimina­tion,
to citizens of the United States resi­dent
in Puerto Rico as well as to citizens
of the United States resident in other terri­tories
and in the States of the Union. See
Selective Draft Law Cases (Aver v. U.
S.), 1918, 245 U.S. 366, at page 378, 38 S.
CANCEL v. UNITED STATES
Cite ... 180 F.2d 873
'lady to the Secretary-General for informa­tion
purposes "statistical and other infor­"
mation of a technical nature relating to
.'economic, social, and educational condi.,
·t~ons" 'in said non-self-governing terri­,
tories. Wheth~r or not Puerto Rico is a
'.territory whose people "have not yet attain­'
ed a full measure of self-government",
· within the meaning of Article 73, never-
· theless the United States has, without
raising the point, in fact regularly trans­m'itted
to the Secretary-General informa­ti'~
n of the sort described with reference
to' Puerto Rico.
.. ::[5] It is contended that the imposition
~j. compulsory military service on Puerto
,.Eico "is to the detriment of the interests
·of ,the people of Puerto Rico and to the
'sole benefit of the United States", and
hence is in violation of the obligation of
the United States, under the treaty, to give
.,Raramount regard to the interests of 'he
· inhabitants of the territory. We thi fCl
this is obviously not so. In accept" g the ..7·....._ ••'"
obligation to promote the well-bein ot h
people of Puerto Rico, the Unite Stat
presumably would be expected t() prote
the inhabitants of the island fr
,jugation by a hostile power. I
therefore seem not to be unjust, Or'l:~~l~'
detriment of the people of Puerto
require their service in the armed f~~~~i
of the. Ynited States on an equal
with residents of continental United S
Moreover the argument fails,
Chapter XI of the Charter, in e:ci#t
with Chapter XII, describing the c",:',,,,:·,..,
nati'onal Trusteeship System, and :ck""i\f"....... r,
XIII, establishing the Trusteeship Q1NetI;-.iilllll
provides no machinery for internati
mpervision and control of the adminjstra"~;,''{;,~~',,,''
,ion on non-self-governing territories. A1'·
;ide 73, upon ratification of the Cbarter
>y the United States, did Dot have the
egal effect of altering the domestic status
,f Puerto Rico under the Constitution of
he United States, or of curtailing the con­titutional
power of Congress to legislate
lith reference to such territory.
[6] Finally, appellant seeks support in
resolution with reference to Puerto Rico
dopted at a meeting last year in Havana,
:uba, of the American Committee on De­liO
F.2d-il5'$
Título Ruiz Alicea v. United States No. 4446 First circuit March 10, 1950
Descripción Exposición del caso donde se reconfirma que la inscripción en la milicia de Estados Unidos es aplicable a Puerto Rico.
Fecha del original 1950-03-10
Trancripción 870 ]80 FEDERAL REPORTER, 2d SERms RUIZ ALtt£A v. UNITED STATES. No. 4446. I. Territories (i;::>5, 18 The Treaty (If Paris. ratified by S'l,;lIll and the United 5i atc's at the con,·I,,·.', of the Spanish-:\lllericaJl \Var, wa~ ',.' void insoiar as Spain purported the: to cede Puerto Rico to the United St,, ;, •., and the ~ekcti"e Service Act could, <" made kg-ally applicaplc to Puerto Ri, ~eJcctive Service Act, § 1 et seq., 50 t:.' c.A.i\ppendix, § 451 et seq.; Treaty b twcen United States and Spain, 30 Stal 1754. Chief.Judge, held thnt the act is legally ap­plicllble 10 Puerto Hieo: Jucl!!,llIcnt nffirmcrl. 2. Territories C:=:> t8 Fact that Puerto Rico has no votin./{ represcntation in the Congress of th United States, does not make the applic,l' tion of the Selective Service Act to Puent, Rico a violation of the basic constitutioll<l i principle that equality of duties is bas('(l on equality of rights. Selective Serviel'. d, § 1 et seq., 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix.. 451 et seq. 3. "fer Itorles <PII Con rcss has power to impose r,.m pubory military sen'ice under a S,., crvice Act applicable, without di ,.. n.• · tion, to citizcns of the United Sl., fl,I-del' in Puerto Rico as well a~ t J citizens of the United States reside lit in other territories and in the states of the union. Sell'cti"e Ser"ice Act, § 1 et seq., 50 U.S. eA.Appendix, § 451 et seq,... Army and navy C!P20 Congress may draft aliens re-,.• in the United States, though they 11\;' 'I be entitled to vOle for election of st'ntati\'cs in Congress,' or even ticipate in state or municipal :-. Selective Service Act, § 1 et ~ ,. ,_.S. C.A.Appendix, § 451 et seq. 5. Territories S=>6 The imposition of COlfl"', I Y military service on Puerto Rico :.. t ;\c Selective Service Act is not to th... ,ktriment of lhe interests of the peopl, of l'uerto Rico ;,1101 to the sole benefit 0i the United Stall" III violation of the ohiigation of the l'llIll'd States, undertrea,I)', to give paramount· re-created, rig11ls, we think it should 'be applied here. The examination on this issue was, as -might ;be exp<'cteo, substantially incon­clusi"\' e; the verdict is, of course, otherwise adequately :,u[1-portN: !. Laven(ler v. Kurn, ~upra, 327 U.S. 64\ 654, 66 S.Ct. 7-W, 90 L.Ed. 916. United States Court of ApJl('als First Circuit. March 10, 19"'JO. [5] Dcfenuanfs final point is even nar­rower. Piaintiff's counsel, in putting a long hypothetical question to his chief medical witness, asked what "was the cause" of plaintiffs delirium. Defendant objected on several grounds h~th "to the form" and to the s11bstance of the question, anu some dis­cussion was had as to the incorporated facts hefore the question was admitted. On this appeal the defendant now particularizes his objection to lhe form af the question to state that it called ,for what w"s in fact. rather than what might have ·been, the cause. This is peculiarly tht: type of obj 'c­tion which under rule 4(), 'cleral Rules of Civil Procell c, shPUld hay made dear at the ime, inc uld nd un-doubtedly.; have led to an immediate correction whtltevt:r trror of fann may ha ve ,been gelosed, [Ie fenqan qnnol en­traop a suce S 11 'plaintiff Ib} thu reserving its ·fire, 'Part ularly on a: atter as incon e­quential as t i. \ thiHk ~fend;iflt re-cli,' c<! a fair.al) and tiler nl.> caeon (listurh the ju lent <>n " • r~1 st it. Judgment a Mljtucl Anjtel Rui7. Alicea was conviet<,d In the United States DistrIct Court for the Di;;­triet of Puerto ltieo, Chavez, J., of violating the S<,lective Service Aet of 1948, alld he al)­pealed. The ('.Qurt of Appeals, Magl'ueler, RUIZ ALICEA v. UNITED STATES Olt" B8 ISO F.2d 870 871 gard to the interests of the inhabitants of Puerto Rico. Selective Service Act, § 1 et seq., 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix, § 451 et seq.; Treaty between United States and Spain, 30 Stat: 1754. 6. International law ~IO.45 Resolution of the American Commit­tee on Dependent Territories in reference to Puerto Rico did not prevent Congress from making the Selecti\'e Service Act ap­plicabie to Puerto Rico. Selective Serv­ice Act, § 1 et seq., 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix, § 451 et seq. • J. Henandez Valle San Juan, P. R..(Agustin Perez Rodriguez, San Juan, P. R, on brief), for appellant. Pascual Amado Rivera, Assistant U. S. Attorney, San Juan, P. R. (Francisco Pon­sa Feliu, United States Attorney, San-­Juan, P. R., on brief), for appellee Before MAGRUDER, Chief Judge, and MARIS and WOODBURY, Circuit Judges. MAGRUDER, Chjef Judge. Miguel Angel Ruiz 'Alicea, a native. and resident of Puerto Rico, and as such ll. citi­zen of Puerto Rico and of the Unih;4 States, was convicted and sentenced in the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico for violation of. the Selective Service Act of 1948, 62 Stat. 604, 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix, § 451 et seq., in that he knowingly failed and neglected to present hiIl)self for and submit to regis­tration as required by §§ 3 and 12(a) of said Act, and of the President's Proclama­tion No. 2799 thereunder, 13 F.R. 4173, 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix, § 453 note. The only question before us is whether the district court erred in denying ali elaborate motion by the defendant that the indictment be quashed and the' case dis­missed "on the ground th.at this Court lacks jurisdiction over the defendant because the Selective Service Law is not legally applicable to Puerto Rico." We hold that the, motion was properly denied. So far as the intention of Congress is concerned, it is clear that the Selective Service Act of 1948, by its express terms, is applicable to Puerto Ri~o. See § 3 and §§ 16(a) and (b). Appellant does not con­tend to the contrary. [1] However, appellant argues at length in his brief, though the point was not specifically made in the motion to quash, that the Treaty of Paris, 30 Stat. 1754, rati-fied by Spain and the United States at th.e conclusion of the Spanish-American War, was and is null and void in so far' as Spain purported therein to cede Puerto Rico to the United States. As far back as 1901, in De Lima v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 1, 21 S.Ct. 743, 45 LEd. 1041, the Supreme Court of the United States recognized the validity of the treaty in holding, 182 U.S. at page 1%, 21 S.Ct. at page 752 that "by the rati­fication of the treaty of Paris the island became territory of the United States, al­thougll !lot an organized territory in the technicaf sense of the word"; and since then the cases dealing with the legislative powers f Congress ov r Puerto Rico have without exception proc t1etl on that basis. Appellant could hard! expect us, as an.....\h') ermediate ap IU't, to undertake ' to pv~t"tUJt; ~ b~lf- ry:o history. Be- 'S..des, the 11 ste. and uridical argu~;'~ m h' ap6etlant h advanced in this i connectton have. Qeen _~I1_<!~m:i.!lSiI!g- \ demolisb~.!1.Jose L6pezBaralt, Is; '..J. t e. ~-- eaty Null"Ab Initio" as to the: ,,:...f:.".~. Cession of Puerto Rico ?, 6 Revista de Der- l e.cho, Legislaci6n y Jurisprudencia del Cole- \ gio de Abogad08 de ~uerto Rico, p. 60 I. (1941). [2] It is further con~ded that Puerto Rico has no vot~ representation in the Congress of the U-uted tes; that it oc­cupies a status ilJferior t9 that of "incor­porated" territo. -as Hawaii and Alaska, and thus co' n~ ~titled to enjoy. equality of rights With tke states nor with incorporated territories, which are on the way to become states"; that therefore the imposition of compulsory military service on residents of Puerto Rico "is a violation of the basic constitutional principle that equality of duties is based on equality of rights." In People of Puerto Rico v. Shell Co." 1937, 302 U.S. 253, 261-262, 58 S.Ct. 167, 872 180 FEDERAL REPORTER, 2d SERIES 171. 82 L.Ed. 235, the Court said: "The Ct. 159, at page 161, 62 L.Ed. 349, L.R.A. aim of the Foraker Act and the Organic 1918C, 361, Ann.Cas.1918B, 856, in which Act was to give Puerto Rico full power of the Court said: "It may not be doubted local self-determination, with an autonomy that the very conception of a just govern­similar to that of the states and incorpo- ment and its du~y to' the citizen includes rated territories. • • • The effect was the reciprocal obligation of the citizen to to confer upon the territory many of the render military service in case of need, and attributes of qua..ri sovereignty possessed by the right to compel it." See also United the states-as, for example, immunity from States v. Henderson, 7 Cir., 1950, 180 F.2d. suit without their consent. • • • By 711. That Puerto Rico now has no voting those acts, the typical American govern- representation in Congress is of no sig­mental structure, consisting of the three nificance in this connection; the same is independent departments-legislative, ex- true of the District of Columbia, and it ecutive and judicial-was erected. 'A is not suggested that Congress lacks paw- I body politic'--a commonwealth-was cre- er to draft into the armed forces citizens.. ated 31 Stat. 79, § 7, c. 191 [48 U.S.C.A. of the United States resident in the Dis- § 733]. The power of taxation, the power trict of Columbia. In fact, Congress may to enact and enforce laws, and other char- draft aliens resident in the United States, aeteristically Ioyemmentai wers were though they may not be entitled to vote vested And, 10 far a att fa for election of representatives in Congress, concerned, as we shbwq bt at' even to participate in state or muriici-respect of the co - ~1 elections. United States v. Lamothe, lative powers e. tir., 1945, 152 F.2d 340; Leonhard v. quite; as v y, 1(J Cir., 1945, 151 F2d 409. the state led.1.Jl:Qiilj~ Evolution eal autono of the Orga 5, 1947, 61 at. 771-772, 775, mb, 7, people of Pue ~ic& re to choose their WI! ~~~~~;~r suffrage-a righr V, to a territor)' of the. td ~te;s. is no reason to suppose tlllWlJ4oA~_!tIr­ary process is now at an end. Certainly nothing in the development to date would preclude the possibility of ultimate s~te­hood On the other hand, perhaps Puerto Rico will eventually achiev:e some unique status under the American flag more satis­factory to its peo.ple than statehood. [3,4] Whatever may be the future status of Puerto Rico, it is clear that in the present situation Congress has power to impose compulsory military service un­der an Act applicable, without discrimina­tion, to citizens of the United States resi­dent in Puerto Rico as well as to citizens of the United States resident in other terri­tories and in the States of the Union. See Selective Draft Law Cases (Aver v. U. S.), 1918, 245 U.S. 366, at page 378, 38 S. 873 Pascual Attorney, CANCEL v. UNITED STATES Cite... 180 F.2d 873 'lady to the Secretary-General for informa­tion purposes "statistical and other infor­" mation of a technical nature relating to.'economic, social, and educational condi., ·t~ons" 'in said non-self-governing terri­, tories. Wheth~r or not Puerto Rico is a '.territory whose people "have not yet attain­' ed a full measure of self-government", · within the meaning of Article 73, never- · theless the United States has, without raising the point, in fact regularly trans­m'itted to the Secretary-General informa­ti'~ n of the sort described with reference to' Puerto Rico... ::[5] It is contended that the imposition ~j. compulsory military service on Puerto ,.Eico "is to the detriment of the interests ·of ,the people of Puerto Rico and to the 'sole benefit of the United States", and hence is in violation of the obligation of the United States, under the treaty, to give.,Raramount regard to the interests of 'he · inhabitants of the territory. We thi fCl this is obviously not so. In accept" g the..7·....._ ••'" obligation to promote the well-bein ot h people of Puerto Rico, the Unite Stat presumably would be expected t() prote the inhabitants of the island fr ,jugation by a hostile power. I therefore seem not to be unjust, Orl:~~l~' detriment of the people of Puerto require their service in the armed f~~~~i of the. Ynited States on an equal with residents of continental United S Moreover the argument fails, Chapter XI of the Charter, in e:ci#t with Chapter XII, describing the c",:',,,,:·,.., nati'onal Trusteeship System, and :ck""i\f"....... r, XIII, establishing the Trusteeship Q1NetI;-.iilllll provides no machinery for internati mpervision and control of the adminjstra"~;,{;,~~,,,' ,ion on non-self-governing territories. A1'· ;ide 73, upon ratification of the Cbarter >y the United States, did Dot have the egal effect of altering the domestic status ,f Puerto Rico under the Constitution of he United States, or of curtailing the con­titutional power of Congress to legislate lith reference to such territory. [6] Finally, appellant seeks support in resolution with reference to Puerto Rico dopted at a meeting last year in Havana, :uba, of the American Committee on De­liO F.2d-il5'$
Código de referencia G1a18.1
Agregar etiquetas para G1a18.1
Publicar un comentario para G1a18.1