DOCSLIB.ORG

Brief Amicus Curiae of Carlos Delgado Altieri, Mayor Of

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Brief Amicus Curiae of Carlos Delgado Altieri, Mayor Of No. 20-303 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States _________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. Petitioner, v. JOSE LUIS VAELLO-MADERO. Respondent _________ ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT _________ BRIEF BY THE MAYOR OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF ISABELA, PUERTO RICO CARLOS DELGADO ALTIERI AS AMICUS CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF VAELLO-MADERO _________ JOSÉ A. HERNÁNDEZ MAYORAL ROBERTO PRATS PALERM Counsel of Record RPP Law PSC 206 TETUÁN ST., STE 702 1509 LOPEZ LANDRON SAN JUAN, PR 00901 10TH FLOOR 787-722-7782 SAN JUAN, PR 00911 [email protected] 787-721-6010 [email protected] Counsel for Amicus Curiae October 29, 2020 i TABLE OF CONTENTS INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE ............................ 1 SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT ............................ 1 ARGUMENT ................................................................ 3 I. BACKGROUND ................................................... 3 II. TO DENY VAELLO-MADERO SSI PAYMENTS BECAUSE OF HOW PUERTO RICO CONTRIBUTES TO THE FEDERAL TREASURY HAS NO RATIONAL BASIS ............... 15 III. DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RESIDENTS OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO, AS U.S. CITIZENS IN AN AUTONOMOUS REGION OF THE UNITED STATES WITHOUT VOTING REPRESENTATION IN CONGRESS, MUST BE SUBJECT TO STRICT SCRUTINY ANALYSIS. ................................................................ 19 CONCLUSION .......................................................... 23 ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES Adarand Constructors v. Pena, 515 U.S. 200, 115 S. Ct. 2097 (1995) ................................................... 20 Balzac v. Porto Rico, 258 U.S. 298, 42 S. Ct. 343 (1922) ...................................................................... 21 Califano v. Torres, 435 U.S. 1 (1978) ............ 15, 16, 21 Dandrige v. Williams, 397 U.S. 471 (1970)) ............. 16 De Lima v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 1 (1901) ..................... 11 Dooley v. United States, 182 U.S. 222 (1901) ........... 11 Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901) ................... 10 Examining Bd. of Eng'rs, Architects & Surveyors v. Flores De Otero, 426 U.S. 572, 96 S. Ct. 2264 (1976). ......................................................... 11, 12, 19 Fin. Oversight & Mgmt. Bd. for P.R. v. Aurelius Inv., LLC, 140 S. Ct. 1649 (2020) .................... 11, 12 Graham v. Richardson, 403 U.S. 365, 91 S. Ct. 1848 (1971). ............................................................ 20 Harris v. Rosario, 446 U.S. 651 (1980) ......... 15, 16, 21 Hirabayashi v. United States, 320 U.S. 81 (1943) ... 22 Martínez v. United States HHS, No. 18-01206- WGY, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 138894 (D.P.R. Aug. 3, 2020) .......................................................... 23 Mass. Bd. of Ret. v. Murgia, 427 U.S. 307, 96 S. Ct. 2562 (1976). ...................................................... 20 Massachusetts Board of Retirement v. Murgia, 427 U.S. 307 (1976) ................................................ 15 iii Puerto Rico v. Sánchez Valle, 136 S. Ct. 1863 (2016) .............................................................. passim Richmond v. J. A. Croson Co., 488 U.S. 469 (1989). ..................................................................... 20 San Antonio Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1, 93 S. Ct. 1278 (1973). ................................. 20 Scott v. Sanford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857). ....... 10 United States v. Vaello-Madero, 356 F.Supp 3d 208 (D.P.R. 2019). .................................................. 23 United States v. Vaello-Madero, 956 F.3d 12 (1st Cir. 2020). ......................................................... 14, 16 Vance v. Bradley, 440 U.S. 93 (1979). ................ 16, 17 STATUTES 26 U.S.C. § 933 ............................................................ 3 30 Stat. 1754 ................................................................ 3 31 Stat. 77 (1900). .................................................... 4, 6 39 Stat. 951 (1917). ...................................................... 7 41 U.S.C. § 1382c(a)(1)(B)(i) ..................................... 14 41 U.S.C. § 1382(c)(e). ............................................... 14 48 U.S.C § 1842 ......................................................... 14 48 U.S.C. § 1801 ........................................................ 14 48 U.S.C. § 731b .......................................................... 8 48 U.S.C. § 734 ............................................................ 9 Pub. L. No. 81-600 ........................................... 8, 12, 19 iv OTHER AUTHORITIES 96 Cong. Rec. 8891 (1950) ........................................... 9 H.R. REP. NO. 86-32 (1959). ...................................... 10 https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/PR. .................... 21 https://www.irs.gov/statistics/soi-tax-stats-gross- collections-by-type-of-tax-and-state-irs-data- book-table-5. ..................................................... 15, 18 Felix Frankfurter, Memorandum for the Secretary of War, in Hearings on S. 4604 before the Senate Committee on Pacific Islands and Porto Rico, 63d Cong., 2d Sess., 23 (1914) .............. 6 Philip C. Jessup, Elihu Root, vol. 1 (New York: Dodd Mead, 1938) .................................................... 4 Congressional Budget Office, Potential Economic Impacts of Changes in Puerto Rico's Status Under S. 712, CBO Papers, April 1990 ................ 13 John F. Kennedy, Presidential Press Conference Material, May 8, 1963, 44: https://www.jfklibrary.org/asset viewer/archives/ JFKPOF/059/JFKPOF-059-010 ............................ 12 Rafael Hernández Colón, The Evolution of Democratic Governance Under the Territorial Clause of the U.S. Constitution, 50 Suffolk U. L. Rev. 587 (2017) ................................................. 22, 23 SSA Publication No. 13-11976, October 2020 .... 15, 18 U.S. Gov't Accountability Off., GAO–14–31, Puerto Rico: Information on How Statehood v Would Potentially Affect Selected Federal Programs and Revenue Sources 14 (2014) ............ 13 United States Senate, Hearings Before the Committee on Pacific Islands and Puerto Rico, Senate Bill 2264, Statement made by Brig. Gen. George W. Davis, U.S.A. Military Governor of the Island of Puerto Rico (January 13, 1900) ......... 5 TREATISES U.N. Charter art. 73 .................................................... 8 CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS U.S. Const. art. I, § 2 ................................................. 19 U.S. Const. amend. XVII ........................................... 19 INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE1 Amicus curiae Carlos Delgado Altieri is the mayor of the Municipality of Isabela, Puerto Rico, and president of the Popular Democratic Party. Mr. Delgado Altieri is deeply troubled by the position assumed by the United States Government claiming that “Congress has a legitimate interest in avoiding a one-sided fiscal relationship under which Puerto Rico shares the financial benefits but not the financial burdens of statehood, and declining to include Puerto Rico in the SSI program is a rational means of furthering that interest.” Pet. 12. Mr. Delgado Altieri intends to bring before the Court the appropriate legal and historical background information relative to Puerto Rico's distinct tax treatment so that it may be properly briefed as to this critical and sensitive point. The amicus curiae brief is presented in support of respondent. SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT The United States requests that this Court issue a writ of certiorari and summarily dismiss the First Circuit Court of Appeal’s ruling so that it can proceed to demand the reimbursement of Supplemental 1 This brief filed by the Mayor of the Municipality of Isabela, Puerto Rico, as permitted under Rule 37.4, at least 10 days prior to the deadline which serves as notice. No counsel for any party authored this brief in whole or in part and no person or entity other than amicus curiae or its counsel made a monetary contribution toward its preparation or submission. 2 Security Income (SSI) payments made to an indigent American citizen after he moved from New York, where its residents are entitled to SSI payments, to Puerto Rico, where its residents are not entitled to SSI payments. As rationale for the SSI program’s discrimination against American citizens residing in Puerto Rico, the United States points to Puerto Rico’s general fiscal autonomy and posits that: “Congress has a legitimate interest in avoiding a one-sided fiscal relationship under which Puerto Rico shares the financial benefits but not the financial burdens of statehood, and declining to include Puerto Rico in the SSI program is a rational means of furthering that interest.” Pet. 12. This contention is both shameful and ignorant. Puerto Rico’s unique tax treatment resulted from the long recognized economic reality that its tax base is too small to support a dual–federal and state– system of taxation. It exempts most but not all income from federal taxation. Consequently, despite its different tax treatment, Puerto Rico contributes to the federal treasury in amounts similar to that of several states. Since SSI payouts to the states is not tied to the amounts contributed in taxes by the residents of each state–the poorer states receive SSI payments in higher proportions than their tax contributions–, it is not rational to exclude Puerto Rico residents simply on account of its different tax system. This Court has recognized that Puerto Rico boasts a relationship to the United States that has no parallel in our history and that an integral aspect of that association
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Puerto Rico, Colonialism In
    University at Albany, State University of New York Scholars Archive Latin American, Caribbean, and U.S. Latino Latin American, Caribbean, and U.S. Latino Studies Faculty Scholarship Studies 2005 Puerto Rico, Colonialism In Pedro Caban University at Albany, State Univeristy of New York, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsarchive.library.albany.edu/lacs_fac_scholar Part of the Latin American Studies Commons Recommended Citation Caban, Pedro, "Puerto Rico, Colonialism In" (2005). Latin American, Caribbean, and U.S. Latino Studies Faculty Scholarship. 19. https://scholarsarchive.library.albany.edu/lacs_fac_scholar/19 This Encyclopedia Entry is brought to you for free and open access by the Latin American, Caribbean, and U.S. Latino Studies at Scholars Archive. It has been accepted for inclusion in Latin American, Caribbean, and U.S. Latino Studies Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of Scholars Archive. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 516 PUERTO RICO, COLONIALISM IN PUERTO RICO, COLONIALISM IN. Puerto Rico They automatically became subjects of the United States has been a colonial possession of the United States since without any constitutionally protected rights. Despite the 1898. What makes Puerto Rico a colony? The simple an­ humiliation of being denied any involvement in fateful swer is that its people lack sovereignty and are denied the decisions in Paris, most Puerto Ricans welcomed U.S. fundamental right to freely govern themselves. The U.S. sovereignty, believing that under the presumed enlight­ Congress exercises unrestricted and unilateral powers over ened tutelage of the United States their long history of Puerto Rico, although the residents of Puerto Rico do not colonial rule would soon come to an end.
    [Show full text]
  • Luis Muñoz Rivera 1859–1916
    H former members 1898–1945 H Luis Muñoz Rivera 1859–1916 RESIDENT COMMISSIONER 1911–1916 UNIONIST FROM PUERTO RICO he leading voice for Puerto Rican autonomy in a proponent of home rule. Muñoz Rivera attended the the late 19th century and the early 20th century, local common (public) school between ages 6 and 10, Luis Muñoz Rivera struggled against the waning and then his parents hired a private tutor to instruct him. TSpanish empire and incipient U.S. colonialism to carve According to several accounts, Muñoz Rivera was largely out a measure of autonomy for his island nation. Though self-taught and read the classics in Spanish and French. As a devoted and eloquent nationalist, Muñoz Rivera had a young man, he wrote poetry about his nationalist ideals, acquired a sense of political pragmatism, and his realistic eventually becoming a leading literary figure on the island appraisal of Puerto Rico’s slim chances for complete and publishing two collections of verse: Retamas (1891) sovereignty in his lifetime led him to focus on securing and Tropicales (1902). To make a living, Muñoz Rivera a system of home rule within the framework of the initially turned to cigar manufacturing and opened a American empire. To that end, he sought as the island’s general mercantile store with a boyhood friend. His father Resident Commissioner to shape the provisions of the had taught him accounting, and he became, according to Second Jones Act, which established a system of territorial one biographer, a “moderately successful businessman.”3 rule in Puerto Rico for much of the first half of the 20th Muñoz Rivera married Amalia Marín Castillo in 1893.4 century.
    [Show full text]
  • Constitutional Interpretation and Nation Building : the Territorial Clause and the Foraker Act, 1787-1900
    University of Massachusetts Amherst ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst Doctoral Dissertations 1896 - February 2014 1-1-2002 Constitutional interpretation and nation building : the Territorial Clause and the Foraker Act, 1787-1900. Charles R. Venator Santiago University of Massachusetts Amherst Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.umass.edu/dissertations_1 Recommended Citation Venator Santiago, Charles R., "Constitutional interpretation and nation building : the Territorial Clause and the Foraker Act, 1787-1900." (2002). Doctoral Dissertations 1896 - February 2014. 2347. https://scholarworks.umass.edu/dissertations_1/2347 This Open Access Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst. It has been accepted for inclusion in Doctoral Dissertations 1896 - February 2014 by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst. For more information, please contact [email protected]. CONSTITUTIONAL INTERPRETATION AND NATION BUILDING: THE TERRITORIAL CLAUSE AND THE FORAKER ACT, 1787-1900 A Dissertation Presented by CHARLES R. VENATOR SANTIAGO Submitted to the Graduate School of the University of Massachusetts Amherst in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY September 2002 Department of Political Science ©Copyright by Charles R. Venator Santiago 2002 All Rights Reserved CONSTITUTIONAL INTERPRETATION AND NATION BUILDING: THE TERRITORIAL CLAUSE AND THE FORAKER ACT, 1787-1900 A Dissertation Presented by CHARLES R. VENATOR SANTIAGO Approved as to style and content by: 1 Roberto AlejandrcCv hair Peter D'Errico, Member Dean Robinson, Member >me Milleur, Department Head Apartment of Political Science DEDICATION For Hiza and Ric Townes, victims of this institution’s corporate greed. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This project began as a paper presented at a Law and Society Association meeting several years ago.
    [Show full text]
  • Muñoz Rivera and Karl Rove
    Muñoz Rivera and Karl Rove By : RAFAEL HERNANDEZ COLON Volume: 34 | No: 27 Page : 24 Issued : 07/13/2006 We celebrate this week the birthday of Luis Muñoz Rivera, Puerto Rico’s most eminent statesman of the 19th and beginning of the 20th century. Muñoz Rivera obtained the Autonomic Charter from Spain in 1897, which provided a wide measure of self-government for Puerto Rico. Under U.S. rule, he fought against the Foraker Act, the first organic act for the government of Puerto Rico passed by Congress. The Foraker Act, approved in 1900, profoundly disappointed Puerto Ricans because it represented a marked retrocession in self-government. At the end of the 19th century, the United States was the most progressive country in the world. The freedoms enshrined in the U. S. Constitution were broadly admired. Upon landing in Ponce July 27, 1898, Gen. Miles, the commander of the invading forces, proclaimed to our people that the purpose of the invasion was to bring the liberties of American institutions to Puerto Rico. Hope sprung throughout the island and the invading forces were joyously received by the majority of the population. These hopes were shattered when the Foraker Act was enacted depriving us even of the rights of self-government, which we had under the Spanish Crown. Muñoz Rivera organized a party called Union de Puerto Rico, which encompassed Puerto Ricans of all political persuasions. The party was swept into power and he was elected resident commissioner, a post he held until his death in 1916. At that time, he had negotiated the Jones Act in Congress, which gave us a wider measure of self-government and granted us American citizenship.
    [Show full text]
  • Guide to Puerto Rican Records in the National Archives at New York City
    GUIDE to PUERTO RICAN RECORDS in the NATIONAL ARCHIVES NEW YORK CITY August 2013 Cover Photo: Aerial photo of San Juan, RG 77 Records of the Office of the Chief of Engineers. Table of Contents Introduction 1 Census RG 29 Census Bureau, Special Censuses of Puerto Rico, 1935 2 Nonpopulation Census Schedules: Nonfarm Livestock, 1930 3 Legal RG 21/578 District Courts of the United States, 1897-1995 4 Criminal Cases Civil Cases Bankruptcy Cases Admiralty Cases Naturalization Records RG 118 Office of the U.S. Attorneys, 1987-1992 8 Military RG 77 Office of the Chief of Engineers, 1896-1950 9 RG 156 Office of the Chief of Ordnance, 1898-1904 11 RG 181 Naval Districts and Shore Establishments, 1898-1960 12 RG 338 U.S. Army Commands, 1952-1962 16 RG 392 U.S. Army Coast Artillery Districts and Defenses, 1901-1919 18 Social and Economic Development RG 4 U.S. Food Administration, 1917-1919 19 RG 9 National Recovery Administration, 1933-1936 20 RG 36 U.S. Customs Service, Customhouses and Collection Districts, Puerto Rico, 1900-1903 25 RG 95 U.S. Forest Service, Caribbean National Forrest, 1929-1961 26 RG 100 Occupational Safety and Health Administration [OSHA], 1977 27 RG 155 Wage and Hour Division, 1939-1945 28 RG 164 Cooperative State Research Service, 1901-1938 30 Agricultural Experiment Station at Mayaguez RG 187 National Resource Planning Board, 1941-1943 31 RG 188 Office of Price Administration, 1942-1946 33 RG 252 Office of the Housing Expediter, 1942-1953 37 RG 323 Puerto Rico Reconstruction Administration, 1935-1955 38 Government and Political Administration RG 26 U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • U.S. Tax Imperialism in Puerto Rico
    American University Law Review Volume 65 Issue 1 Article 1 2015 U.S. Tax Imperialism in Puerto Rico Diane Lourdes Dick Seattle University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/aulr Part of the Tax Law Commons Recommended Citation Dick, Diane Lourdes (2015) "U.S. Tax Imperialism in Puerto Rico," American University Law Review: Vol. 65 : Iss. 1 , Article 1. Available at: https://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/aulr/vol65/iss1/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Washington College of Law Journals & Law Reviews at Digital Commons @ American University Washington College of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in American University Law Review by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ American University Washington College of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. U.S. Tax Imperialism in Puerto Rico This article is available in American University Law Review: https://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/aulr/vol65/ iss1/1 ARTICLES U.S. TAX IMPERIALISM IN PUERTO RICO DIANE LOURDES DICK* This Article uses historical and legal analysis to demonstrate how U.S. domination over Puerto Rico's tax and fiscal policies has been the centerpiece of a colonial system and an especially destructive form of economic imperialism. Specifically, this Article develops a novel theory of U.S. tax imperialism in Puerto Rico, chronicling the sundry ways in which the United States has used tax laws to exert economic dominance over its less developed island colony. During the colonial period, U.S. officials wrote and revised Puerto Rican tax laws to serve U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • “Foreign in a Domestic Sense” Hispanic Americans in Congress During the Age of U.S
    “Foreign in a Domestic Sense” hispanic americans in congress during the age of u.s. colonialism and global expansion, 1898–1945 On October 15, 1900, La correspondencia, a San Juan daily newspaper, described the qualities of a Resident Commissioner, a position recently created by the Foraker Act (31 Stat. 77–86) to provide Puerto Rico with representation in the U.S. House. The writer stated that such a “representative must be worthy of the trust of those he represents. He must earn that trust through his history, which is a record of the things he has accomplished for the good of the homeland, a justification of his intellectual qualities, a demonstration of his character, and evidence of his love of freedom.”1 Yet, the first Resident Commissioner, Federico Degetau, was not even allowed to set foot on the House Floor when the 57th Congress (1901–1903) assembled in December 1901. Many in Congress questioned the very existence of the position of Resident Commissioner and the ability of Puerto Ricans to participate in a democratic society. Many Members of Congress were confused by the island’s ambiguous position within the United States, classified as neither a state nor a territory. “Now, Mr. Chairman, Puerto Rico is either in the United States or out of it,” Representative Amos Cummings of New York declared during debate on the Foraker Act. “If the island is out of the United States, we have no business legislating for her here in any way whatever, and if she is in the United States, she is in the same condition as Arizona, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and the other Territories.” He concluded by suggesting facetiously that the Foraker Act “ought to be amended so as to be entitled, ‘An act to make a temporary purgatory for the island of Puerto Rico.’”2 The colonial conquests of the late 19th century, particularly in Puerto Rico and the Philippines, marked the first time the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • The Origins of the Jones Act of Puerto Rico
    City University of New York (CUNY) CUNY Academic Works All Dissertations, Theses, and Capstone Projects Dissertations, Theses, and Capstone Projects 9-2019 The Origins of the Jones Act of Puerto Rico Stephanie Mercedes The Graduate Center, City University of New York How does access to this work benefit ou?y Let us know! More information about this work at: https://academicworks.cuny.edu/gc_etds/3344 Discover additional works at: https://academicworks.cuny.edu This work is made publicly available by the City University of New York (CUNY). Contact: [email protected] THE ORIGINS OF THE JONES ACT OF PUERTO RICO by STEPHANIE MERCEDES CASTILLO A master’s thesis submitted to the Graduate Faculty in Liberal Studies in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts, The City University of New York 2019 1 ii © 2019 STEPHANIE MERCEDES CASTILLO All Rights Reserved iii THE ORIGINS OF THE JONES ACT OF PUERTO RICO by Stephanie Mercedes Castillo This manuscript has been read and accepted for the Graduate Faculty in Liberal Studies in satisfaction of the thesis requirement for the degree of Master of Arts. Date Tomohisa Hattori Thesis Advisor Date Elizabeth Macaulay-Lewis Executive Officer THE CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK iv ABSTRACT The origins of the Jones Act of Puerto Rico by Stephanie Mercedes Castillo Advisor: Tomohisa Hattori After the Spanish-American War that ended in 1898, Puerto Rico was given to the United States by Spain as a war booty, becoming a US colony. The first law ever created by the United States to control Puerto Rico was the Foraker Act (also known as the Organic Act of 1900).
    [Show full text]
  • Redalyc.Puerto Rico and the United States Under the Cabotage Laws: A
    Forum Empresarial ISSN: 1541-8561 [email protected] Centro de Investigaciones Comerciales e Iniciativas Académicas Puerto Rico Nina, Daniel Puerto Rico and the United States Under the Cabotage Laws: A Breach to the World Trade Organization’s Member Agreement? Forum Empresarial, vol. 21, núm. 2, 2016, pp. 59-78 Centro de Investigaciones Comerciales e Iniciativas Académicas San Juan, Puerto Rico Available in: http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=63150031003 How to cite Complete issue Scientific Information System More information about this article Network of Scientific Journals from Latin America, the Caribbean, Spain and Portugal Journal's homepage in redalyc.org Non-profit academic project, developed under the open access initiative FÓRUM EMPRESARIAL Vol. 21 | No. 2 | Winter 2016 Puerto Rico and the United States Under the Cabotage Laws: A Breach to the World Trade Organization’s Member Agreement? Daniel Nina | [email protected] Universidad de Puerto Rico, Recinto de Río Piedras Received: August 18, 2016 Accepted: September 30, 2016 ABSTRACT The objective of this essay is to evaluate the governmental and self-regulated power of Puerto Rico, regarding the cabotage laws and its relation with the United States. The history of Puerto Rico with the United States, certain laws and jurisprudence, as well as, the responsibility of the United States and the World Trade Organization is studied. It is concluded that Puerto Rico, although enjoying certain sovereign attributes, remains a territory under the control of the United States Congress. Keywords : Puerto Rico, United States, cabotage laws, territory, World Trade Organization RESUMEN El objetivo de este ensayo es evaluar el poder gubernamental y auto regulatorio de Puerto Rico, en relación con las leyes de cabotaje y su relación con Estados Unidos.
    [Show full text]
  • The Peculiar Status of Puerto Rico: Neither a State, Nor an Independent Nation
    Syracuse University SURFACE Theses - ALL 5-2015 The Peculiar Status of Puerto Rico: Neither a State, nor an Independent Nation Gyula Tihanyi Syracuse University Follow this and additional works at: https://surface.syr.edu/thesis Part of the History Commons Recommended Citation Tihanyi, Gyula, "The Peculiar Status of Puerto Rico: Neither a State, nor an Independent Nation" (2015). Theses - ALL. 118. https://surface.syr.edu/thesis/118 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by SURFACE. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses - ALL by an authorized administrator of SURFACE. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ABSTRACT “The Peculiar Status of Puerto Rico: Neither a State, nor an Independent Nation” is a study of the creation of the peculiar status of Puerto Rico. The research traces the steps from the American acquisition of Puerto Rico from Spain in 1898 to the granting of US citizenship to Puerto Ricans in 1917, cementing the ambiguous status of the island. The burgeoning industrial and agrarian economy of the late-nineteenth century United States generated an overproduction of goods without sufficient domestic and foreign markets. At the same time the closing of the frontier halted continental expansion, thus limiting the available free soil sought by the new waves of immigrants and their pressure pushing native populations westward. The combined economic forces of overproduction and the closing of the frontier led to social problems like unemployment and labor unrest, which consequently led to political problems subsequent administrations attempted to tackle. In search of new markets, the United States sought expansion into Central and South America bringing the US in conflict with Spain, still holding Cuba and Puerto Rico in the Caribbean.
    [Show full text]
  • Viewpoints, Hiost Members of the Genera­ Tion of Munoz Rivera Had Considered That There Were Two Or Three Accepta­ Ble Solutions to Puerto Rico's Political Situation
    INFORMATION TO USERS This material was produced from a microfilm copy of the original document. While the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the original submitted. The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand markings or patterns which may appear on this reproduction. 1. The sign or "target" for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is "Missing Page(s)". If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting thru an image and duplicating adjacent pages to insure you complete continuity. 2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a large round black mark, it is an indication that the photographer suspected that the copy may have moved during exposure and thus cause a blurred image. You will find a good image of the page in the adjacent frame. 3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., was part of the material being photographed the photographer followed a definite method in "sectioning" the material. It is customary to begin photoing at the upper left hand corner of a large sheet and to continue photoing from left to right in equal sections with a small overlap. If necessary, sectioning is continued again — beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete. 4. The majority of users indicate that the textual content is of greatest value, however, a somewhat higher quality reproduction could be made from "photographs" if essential to the understanding of the dissertation.
    [Show full text]
  • Constitutional Amendments, Treaties, and Major Acts of Congress Referenced in the Text
    H APPENDIX I H Constitutional Amendments, Treaties, and Major Acts of Congress Referenced in the Text AMENDMENT/ACT PUBLIC LAW/U.S. CODE MAIN PROVISIONS NORTHWEST ORDINANCE 1 Stat. 50-53 Provided for a territorial government in the Northwest Territory. OF 1787 Created the framework for territories to apply for statehood. Approved by the Second Continental Congress on July 13, 1787. Re-enacted by the 1st Federal Congress (1789–1791) on July 21, 1789. LOUISIANA PURCHASE TREaty 8 Stat. 200-206 For approximately $15 million, France ceded Louisiana to the United (1803) States, roughly encompassing the territory between the Mississippi River in the east and the Rocky Mountains in the west. Approved by the Senate during the 8th Congress (1803–1805) on October 20, 1803. ADAMS–ONÍS 8 Stat. 252-273 Provided for Spain’s cession of Florida to the United States, and set (TrANSCONTINEntal) the western boundary of the Louisiana Purchase. The United States TREaty OF 1819 renounced claims to Texas and took responsibility for $5 million in American citizens’ claims against Spain. Approved by the Senate during the 16th Congress (1819–1821) on February 19, 1821. THE TREaty OF GuaDalupE 9 Stat. 922-943 Ended the war between Mexico and the United States. Mexico ceded HIDALGO OF 1848 to the United States control of Texas north of the Rio Grande River, and the territory that eventually made up the states of California, Nevada, Utah, the bulk of New Mexico and Arizona (the Gadsden Purchase of 1853 secured the rest of the territory that comprises these states), and portions of Colorado and Wyoming.
    [Show full text]