4 ms·

I was curious as well and I think I figured it out: https://books.google.com/books?id=e_tKDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA87&lpg=PA87&dq=fa%27asamoa+14th+amendment&source=bl&ots

I was curious as well and I think I figured it out: https://books.google.com/books?id=e_tKDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA87&lpg=PA87&dq=fa%27asamoa+14th+amendment&source=bl&ots=MiAI5AUD_D&sig=_89O3HcHT4jICb6am-0AM-DAYbU&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwialJ7-vo_aAhVO6mMKHcrPCw8Q6AEIfTAH#v=onepage&q=fa'asamoa%2014th%20amendment&f=false https://books.google.com/books?id=e_tKDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA87&lpg=P... American Samoa has laws that say that only American Samoans can own land or be a member of their local government. What the 14th Amendment may give them in terms of US citizenship, the 14th Amendment takes away with regard to these exclusionary laws.

dragonwriter 9y ago
> What the 14th Amendment may give them in terms of US citizenship, the 14th Amendment takes away with regard to these exclusionary laws. Except it doesn't. Even if the term “United States” in the first clause might be argued to include the whole territory of the nation called the “United States” and not just specifically the constituent states (which is the crux of the citizenship argument), that doesn't imply that the word “State” in the remainder of the Amendment means something other than the individual states of the Union. And all the restrictions are of the form “No State shall...”
- roywiggins 9y ago
  I know that Constitutional protections don't apply in their entirety in Puerto Rico, so I imagine there's ways in which it has been construed similarly in American Samoa. If it's not an incorporated territory (just an island the US happens to own), they are treated differently.
  - jcranmer 9y ago
    Puerto Rico is, like American Samoa, an unincorporated territory. Well, the government doesn't consider it incorporated, although some legal scholars suggest that Congress did end up incorporating it at some point via accumulation of various acts (the argument has not, to my knowledge, been tried in court).
- kolpa 9y ago
  Congress might still "subject AS to scrutiny" and pass laws to bring AS in line with States' obligations.
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    Congress can do almost whatever it wants with any territory (subject to much less limits than apply to Congres action against states), but the 14th Amendment doesn't really have anything to do with that.
- lutorm 9y ago
  Even if the term “United States” in the first clause might be argued to include the whole territory of the nation called the “United States” and not just specifically the constituent states So you're arguing that people born in the District of Columbia aren't US citizens either?
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    > So you're arguing that people born in the District of Columbia aren't US citizens either? No, I'm arguing that the debate about the scope of the term “United States” in the first clause of the Amendment has no impact on the scope of term “State” in the rest of the Amendment.
- logfromblammo 9y ago
  And by the federal construction, all states acting together in concert--as the federal government--are also forbidden from doing those things "no state shall" do. But the 14th also includes "subject to the jurisdiction thereof". The essential element for the territories is whether the federal US has jurisdiction there in addition to sovereignty. The US definitely has sovereignty over American Samoa, as it is a territory not a protectorate, but the jurisdiction remains in the local entity of American Samoa, under its constitution and statutes, except where it has been explicitly ceded or shared, or seized. As such, the court would have to examine whether he was subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time he was born. As the United States makes a distinction between "incorporated" and "unincorporated" territories, one could argue that the "unincorporated" status is an indicator that the US refuses to extend its jurisdiction there. So he does not have a valid claim under the 14th Amendment. It would be up to American Samoa to petition Congress to be "incorporated", and thereby subject itself to the federal jurisdiction of the US, and also to make that status retroactive beyond the birthdates of the class plaintiffs, in order for the court decide the case has merit. If it were to do so, the exclusionary local laws that favor island natives would then be subject to examination under equal protection and federal nondiscrimination clauses. If they want equal rights as the mainlanders, they have to erase the distinctions on the island, too. If Samoa becomes incorporated, all the normal constitutional protections apply.

dragonwriter 9y ago

> What the 14th Amendment may give them in terms of US citizenship, the 14th Amendment takes away with regard to these exclusionary laws. Except it doesn't. Even if the term “United States” in the first clause might be argued to include the whole territory of the nation called the “United States” and not just specifically the constituent states (which is the crux of the citizenship argument), that doesn't imply that the word “State” in the remainder of the Amendment means something other than the individual states of the Union. And all the restrictions are of the form “No State shall...”

roywiggins 9y ago
I know that Constitutional protections don't apply in their entirety in Puerto Rico, so I imagine there's ways in which it has been construed similarly in American Samoa. If it's not an incorporated territory (just an island the US happens to own), they are treated differently.
- jcranmer 9y ago
  Puerto Rico is, like American Samoa, an unincorporated territory. Well, the government doesn't consider it incorporated, although some legal scholars suggest that Congress did end up incorporating it at some point via accumulation of various acts (the argument has not, to my knowledge, been tried in court).
kolpa 9y ago
Congress might still "subject AS to scrutiny" and pass laws to bring AS in line with States' obligations.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  Congress can do almost whatever it wants with any territory (subject to much less limits than apply to Congres action against states), but the 14th Amendment doesn't really have anything to do with that.
lutorm 9y ago
Even if the term “United States” in the first clause might be argued to include the whole territory of the nation called the “United States” and not just specifically the constituent states So you're arguing that people born in the District of Columbia aren't US citizens either?
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > So you're arguing that people born in the District of Columbia aren't US citizens either? No, I'm arguing that the debate about the scope of the term “United States” in the first clause of the Amendment has no impact on the scope of term “State” in the rest of the Amendment.
logfromblammo 9y ago
And by the federal construction, all states acting together in concert--as the federal government--are also forbidden from doing those things "no state shall" do. But the 14th also includes "subject to the jurisdiction thereof". The essential element for the territories is whether the federal US has jurisdiction there in addition to sovereignty. The US definitely has sovereignty over American Samoa, as it is a territory not a protectorate, but the jurisdiction remains in the local entity of American Samoa, under its constitution and statutes, except where it has been explicitly ceded or shared, or seized. As such, the court would have to examine whether he was subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time he was born. As the United States makes a distinction between "incorporated" and "unincorporated" territories, one could argue that the "unincorporated" status is an indicator that the US refuses to extend its jurisdiction there. So he does not have a valid claim under the 14th Amendment. It would be up to American Samoa to petition Congress to be "incorporated", and thereby subject itself to the federal jurisdiction of the US, and also to make that status retroactive beyond the birthdates of the class plaintiffs, in order for the court decide the case has merit. If it were to do so, the exclusionary local laws that favor island natives would then be subject to examination under equal protection and federal nondiscrimination clauses. If they want equal rights as the mainlanders, they have to erase the distinctions on the island, too. If Samoa becomes incorporated, all the normal constitutional protections apply.