Davis v. Guam | The Fight Against CHamoru Self-Determination
Vložit
- čas přidán 1. 07. 2024
- Help me make more videos!
Support this channel! / pulanspeaks
Follow me!
/ pulanspeaks
/ pulanspeaks
/ pulanspeaks
Tiktok @pulanspeaks
Maga'låhi/Maga'håga Patreon Supporters
Puti'on
Dylan Sablan
Jesse Babauta
Timestamp
0:00 - Case Overview
1:32 - Political & Historical Context
5:25 - CHamoru only vote plebiscite law
6:40 - US Supreme Court Case Rice v. Cayetano
9:14 - CHamoru only vote changed to Native Inhabitants of Guam vote due to Legal concerns because of Rice
12:34 - Legal Proceedings
12:55 - Beginning of Davis’s Lawsuit in the District Court of Guam Davis v. Guam, et al., No. 1:11-cv-00035 (D. Guam)
13:32 - Defense argued Davis lacked standing and ripeness
14:59 - District Court of Guam dismissed the case for lack of standing and ripeness
15:08 - Davis appeals to the Ninth Circuit Davis v. Guam, et al., No. 13-15199 (9th Cir.) Court reversed District Court of Guam
16:39 - Circuit Judge N.R. Smith Dissent
17:22 - Now having standing, Davis refiles his lawsuit in the District Court of Guam Davis v. Guam, et al., No. 1:11-cv-00035 (D. Guam)
17:45 - Ruling of District Court of Guam
18:10 - Guam’s defense of the 2000 Plebiscite law
18:22 - Definition of Native Inhabitants of Guam was not a racial one but a political one
20:06 - The Plebiscite is not an election within the meaning of the fifteenth amendment
20:53 - Fundamental right to vote applies differently in Guam as an unincorporated territory
21:11 - Restricting the vote will allow US to fulfill its international obligations
21:34 - Reasons why the Court did not find Guam’s arguments persuasive
26:50 - Guam appeals to the Ninth Circuit Davis v. Guam, et al., No. 17-15719 (9th Cir.) Court affirmed the District Court of Guam
28:33 - Guam appeals to the Supreme Court
28:39 - Final Comments
References
Ada, J. F., & Bettis, L. (1996). The quest for commonwealth, the quest for change. Issues in Guam’s political development: The Chamorro perspective, 125-203.
United States Code: Immigration and Nationality, 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101-1483 (Suppl. 5 1952).
Organic Act of Guam. Aug. 1, 1950, ch. 512, 64 Stat. 384 ( 48 U.S.C. 1421 et seq.)
Public Law 23-147
Guam Law 25-106
Public Law 27-106
Rice v. Cayetano, 528 U.S. 495 (2000)
Legal Proceedings
Davis v. Guam, et al., No. 17-15719 (9th Cir.) (opinion issued and judgment entered July 29, 2019; mandate issued Aug. 20, 2019).
Davis v. Guam, et al., No. 13-15199 (9th Cir.) (opinion issued and judgment entered May 8, 2015; mandate issued June 2, 2015).
Davis v. Guam, et al., No. 1:11-cv-00035 (D. Guam) (order adopting magistrate judge’s report and recommendation and granting defendants’ motion to dismiss without prejudice issued Jan. 9, 2013; decision and order granting plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment issued Mar. 8, 2017).
United Nations
UN General Assembly, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 16 December 1966, United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 999, p. 171,
UN General Assembly, Question of Guam : resolution / adopted by the General Assembly, 2 December 1985, A/RES/40/42
UN General Assembly, Question of Guam., 25 November 1981, A/RES/36/63
UN General Assembly, Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, 14 December 1960, A/RES/1514(XV)
UN General Assembly, Principles which should guide Members in determining whether or not an obligation exists to transmit the information called for under Article 73 e of the Charter, 15 December 1960, A/RES/1541,
Great topic for a video! It would be awesome if you could include audio excerpts of Julian Aguon arguing before the court.
Si Yu'os ma'ase'!
Congratulations on producing another greatly informative video! You hit exactly on the irony of the story. I like how you presented all of the primary documentation and highlighted the key parts. The clear video chapters are very helpful to follow the structure and to re-watch the complicated parts.
Si Yu'os ma'ase' for the wonderful comment! Appreciate it as always!
If the constitution is not fully incorporated in Guam who picks and chooses what amendments apply and what don't apply? If we are American citizens but are not allotted full constitutional rights i.e. the right to vote for President why should we as a recognize native people (As per UN) have to be force to recognize someone we deemed not a native be forced to honor his vote regardless of him not being native but a citizen of the United States. I'm not anti-American but you can't have your cake and eat it too. I appreciate being an American but it's also American to say why is one allotted these inalienable rights as an American but these Americans don't have the same rights. America is one of the great experiment in democracy and it is not perfect but in time we hope it progresses to that perfect Union we so intimately belive and fight for! Your page pops up every so often and I appreciate it this logical breakdown of Guam’s history of colonial rule and determinations imposed on it “legally”. Pls keep it up.
Great comment! Under the Territorial clause of the US constitution, only the US Congress can choose what parts of the US constitution may apply fully to Guam beyond the "basic fundamental rights." You make a great point about the inherent unfairness, and that's the issue of colonialism, the inequality in the political relationship. And as you rightfully pointed out, one does not need to be anti-American to rightfully call that out. Si Yu'os ma'ase' for the comment!
Earlier attempts by Guam's people to gain more self rule were rejected until someone asked the naval administration a question during the land grab activities following WWII; tell us how we can alienate Guam's people of their land since they aren't citizens? The struggle for self-determination continues.
@@pulanspeaks
Informative and sad😢
This may be a dumb question but, Why does not the United Nations intervene?
Not a dumb question at all! The UN is woefully limited in what it can enforce or not enforce in generally, and especially for a Non self governing territory. The General Assembly can only pass resolutions, and doesn't have an international army to enforce it. Only the Security Council of the UN, can military force be authorized. However, I don't see the Security Council to ever force the self-determination issue on Guam, especially since the US as a permanent member can just veto anything. Furthermore, since Guam is not a "State" (Not in the sense of being a state of the US), Guam can't take the path of the International Court of Justice. Thus, leaving the UN only able to issue non-binding resolutions.
Dångkolo' na galåbok si Dave Davis