Source: http://fsmsupremecourt.org/WebSite/fsm/decisions/vol3/3fsm469_481.htm
Timestamp: 2017-09-22 02:50:09
Document Index: 509983291

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2', '§ 1', '§ 11', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 874', '§ 52', '§ 105']

Powers not expressly delegated to the national government nor prohibited to the states are state powers. FSM Const. art. VIII, § 2. FSM v. Oliver, 3 FSM Intrm. 469, 473 (Pon. 1988).
The fact that control over marine areas within the twelve-mile zone is not mentioned in the Constitution is a strong indication that the framers intended the states to control ownership and use of marine resources within that area. FSM v. Oliver, 3 FSM Intrm. 469, 473 (Pon. 1988).
Constitutional Law - Transition Clause
The underlying principle of the transition clause of the FSM Constitution, FSM Const. art. XV, § 1, is that "a new constitution ought to bring with it no greater changes than are necessary to effectuate its terms." SCREP No. 28, II J. of Micro. Con. Con. 808. FSM v. Oliver, 3 FSM Intrm. 469, 476 (Pon. 1988).
That a carryover statute covers topics that now fall into areas both state and national responsibilities is not a sufficient ground for reducing the reach of the statute or allowing it to fall short of its originally intended scope. FSM v. Oliver, 3 FSM Intrm. 469, 477 (Pon. 1988).
If neither state nor national powers alone are sufficient to carry out the original purposes of a carryover statute, or if state and national powers are invoked, then the statute is enforceable as both state and national law. FSM v. Oliver, 3 FSM Intrm. 469, 477 (Pon. 1988).
The judicial guidance clause, FSM Const. art. XI, § 11, is intended to insure, among other things, that this Court will not simply accept decisions of the Trust Territory High Court without independent analysis, SCREP No. 31, II J. of Micro. Con. Con. 821. FSM v. Oliver, 3 FSM Intrm. 469, 478 (Pon. 1988).
Regulatory power beyond twelve miles from island baselines lies with the national government. FSM v. Oliver, 3 FSM Intrm. 469, 479 (Pon. 1988).
The burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt is on the government as to all essential elements of a crime charged. FSM v. Oliver, 3 FSM Intrm. 469, 479 (Pon. 1988).
While Congress may have the power to prohibit the taking of and killing of turtles within the twelve mile area as a matter of national law, it should lie with Congress, and not the Court, to determine whether the power should be exercised. FSM v. Oliver, 3 FSM Intrm. 469, 480 (Pon. 1988).
The Constitution expressly vests in the national Congress control over marine areas beyond twelve miles from island baselines but is silent about the area within the twelve mile zone. FSM Const. art. IX, § 2. Powers not expressly delegated to the national government nor prohibited to the states are state powers. FSM Const. art. VIII, § 2. Thus, the fact that control over marine areas within the twelve-mile zone is not mentioned in the Constitution is a strong indication that the framers intended the states to control ownership and use of marine resources within that area. Edwards v. Pohnpei, 3 FSM Intrm. 350, 356 (Pon. 1988).
B. The Transition Clause
Having concluded that 23 F.S.M.C. 105(3) is enforceable by the states and that most of the set of laws with which it was enacted, and with which it now appears in chapter one of title 23 of the FSM Code, relate to matters consigned to the states under the FSM system of federalism, we must consider whether this compels the conclusion that the section is not enforceable as national law.
It remains then to determine whether 23 F.S.M.C. 105(3) calls for the exercise of national powers.
1. The statute, 23 F.S.M.C. 105(3), provides as follows: "No sea turtle of any size shall be taken or killed from the first day of June to the thirty-first day of August inclusive, nor from the first day of December to the thirty-first day of January inclusive."
2. This is apparent from the fact that the provision appeared as section 781 in the 1960 Trust Territory Code, before establishment of the Congress of Micronesia in 1965.
3. These provisions now in title 23, chapter 1 of the FSM Code presumably were all promulgated at the same time.
They appeared together in substantially the same form in the 1960 Trust Territory Code at sections 781 (turtles), 780 (explosives and poisons), 782 (sponges), 783 (mother-of-pearl oyster shells), and 770 to 774 (trochus). They also appeared as a set in both subsequent Trust Territory Codes. See 45 TTC §§ 1-53 (1970) and 45 TTC §§ 1-53 (1980).
4. "A statute of the Trust Territory continues in effect except to the extent it is inconsistent with this Constitution, or is amended or repealed...." FSM Const. art XV, § 1.
5. Ishizawa v. Pohnpei, 2 FSM Intrm. 67, 73 n.5 (Pon. 1985).
6. In re Raitoun, 1 FSM Intrm. 561 (App. 1984); Semens v. Continental Airlines Inc. (II), 2 FSM Intrm. 200, 204 (Pon. 1986).
7. Rauzi v. FSM, 2 FSM Intrm. 8 (Pon. 1984).
8. Edwards v. Pohnpei, 3 FSM Intrm. 350, 354-59 (Pon. 1988).
9. An alternative approach would be to give continued effect only to those portions of the Trust Territory Code which fit neatly within the powers of either the national, or state, governments. This could produce more orderly applications of those statutes which do remain viable, and might also reduce the potential for conflict between state and national officials. However, the approach would leave far more gaps in the law and could produce quite unanticipated results. In any event, this alternative approach would be contrary to the underlying principle of the transition clause and is thereby precluded. It is hoped however that Congress and state legislatures will recognize that the path marked by the transition clause has a few pitfalls of its own. It would therefore be helpful for legislative bodies to review the carryover laws with an eye toward the responsibilities of their respective governments, and to make any appropriate modifications.
10. When the provision was originally promulgated, the Trust Territory claimed territorial waters only three miles from prescribed baselines. Trust Territory Code § 874(c) (1960). There was no claim of more extensive jurisdiction until the Congress of Micronesia enacted Pub. L. No. 7-71, asserting an exclusive fishery zone twelve miles seaward of island baselines, and an extended fishery zone 200 miles seaward of baselines. 52 TTC §§ 52-54. That legislation became effective on June 30, 1979, roughly coinciding with initiation of constitutional self-government of the Federated States of Micronesia.
11. There is one other indication that Congress views title 23, chapter 1 as national law. In 1986 a new section, 23 F.S.M.C. 115, prohibiting the taking of marine mammals was added to the chapter. Pub. L. No. 4-71 (4th Cong., 1st Reg. Sess. 1985). That statute renumbered, as 23 F.S.M.C. 116, the penalty provision applicable to violation of "any of the provisions of this title for which a different penalty is not otherwise provided." A review of the title reveals that the 23 F.S.M.C. 116 penalty applies only to chapter one violations, specifically to 23 F.S.M.C. §§ 105-114.
This indicates an intention, or at least an assumption, of Congress that the provisions of title 23, chapter 1, including 23 F.S.M.C. 105(3) prohibitions against the taking of sea turtles during the period from June through August, are to be enforced as national law.
12. The Compact of Free Association was adopted by the Congress of the Federated States of Micronesia by Congressional Resolution No. 4-60 (4th Cong., 2nd Spec. Sess. 1986) and by the United States Congress in United States Public Law 99-239.