Puerto Rico received a rather unwelcome and tightly wrapped Christmas gift this year from the United States as it was reminded, in a brief filed by Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr., that it is not a sovereign state regardless of the fact that it has its own Constitution and is much more independent than a colony or territory.

The United States, taking a substantial interest in the outcome of the two cases reaching the Supreme Court in January 2016 regarding Puerto Rico’s political status and future, just planted its feet firmly in the argument that Puerto Rico does not self-govern and is actually a territory with a limited ability and authority to govern over its own interests, disputes, and affairs. The brief has created a media frenzy in Puerto Rico and has even involved the United Nations through an appeal highlighting human rights issues pertaining to self-determination.

Image Courtesy Of [Vxla via Flickr]

Historically speaking, Puerto Rico was ceded to the United States by Spain in 1898 following the conclusion of the Spanish-American War pursuant to the Treaty of Paris signed on December 10, 1898. Following several years of constructing Puerto Rico’s government, legislature, and judiciary, it was finally provided a bill of rights by Congress in 1917, and the people of Puerto Rico were granted U.S. citizenship. In 1950, Congress gave Puerto Rico the right to create its own Constitution to be adopted by its government so long as it “provided a republican form of government” and “include[d] a bill of rights.” Puerto Rico’s Constitution was approved by Congress in 1952 following several changes and revisions. Since then, Puerto Rico has enjoyed a level of autonomy and sovereignty similar to that of the states. Constitutionally speaking however, Congress has directly managed and overseen Puerto Rico’s affairs under the Territory Clause of Article IV of the Constitution.

The cases to be heard by the Supreme Court, while narrow in focus, will directly address the debate over Puerto Rico’s constitutional and political future–a bigger picture effect, if you will. One case addresses whether the United States and Puerto Rico are separate sovereign nations for the purposes of Double Jeopardy under the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Due to the fact that the Double Jeopardy Clause prohibits individuals from being tried for the same offense twice, Puerto Rico would have to have sovereignty and operate in an autonomous fashion to charge individuals for the same crimes they were convicted of in federal court. While the federal U.S. government and the states are considered separate sovereigns for the purposes of Double Jeopardy, in its brief, the U.S., who is not a party to the case, submitted support for the Respondents in Commonwealth of Puerto Rico v. Luis M. Sanchez Valle, concluding that Puerto Rico is not a separate sovereign entity and therefore, Puerto Rico’s individual and independent prosecution of the individuals convicted in federal court violates the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

The second case to be heard by the Supreme Court centers around Puerto Rico’s catastrophic public debt of approximately $72 billion, which it wants to be able to control and restructure in the same way each individual state can, but is not able to under the Bankruptcy Code of U.S. law. The debt incorporates $20 billion for public utilities, used by the people of Puerto Rico including 3.5 million Americans, which Puerto Rico is unable to pay. It is urging the Supreme Court to grant Puerto Rico the right to enact laws allowing for restructuring. This desperate measure comes on the heels of a 2014 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit that struck down Puerto Rico’s Recovery Act, which allowed for Puerto Rico to fill the gaps of Chapter 9 of the Bankruptcy Code that had excluded any part of Puerto Rico’s government to take part in restructuring. As such, the Recovery Act was found to be in direct opposition to U.S. law and deemed unconstitutional. The financial crisis in Puerto Rico has brought the small island to the brink of an economic meltdown.

Puerto Rico’s Governor, Alejandro García Padilla, issued an impassioned and assertive statement following Verrilli’s brief filing, stating that the Solicitor General’s stance is “contrary to all Supreme Court jurisprudence” and that Verrilli’s position is “at odds with prior postures by his office with regards to the sovereignty of the Commonwealth.” As far as Padilla is concerned, using the term “colony” to describe Puerto Rico’s current political status, well, those were fighting words.

While the upcoming Supreme Court cases both carry the answer to a long-lasting debate about Puerto Rico’s constitutional and political future, it appears that both sides want their cake and to eat it too. Padilla does not support either statehood or independence for Puerto Rico and wants U.S. financial and legal support on his own terms. The U.S. has received many benefits from its relationship with Puerto Rico, yet it fails to address the major pitfalls threatening the territory and is unwilling to be flexible in order to address dire concerns that only it can to date. Nothing is for certain except this–come early 2016, the Supreme Court will tackle the issue as to whether Puerto Rico is separate and sovereign from the United States. Until then, all we can do is wait and hope that Puerto Rico works with the United States to come up with additional solutions to the major problems at hand.

Ajla Glavasevic

Ajla Glavasevic is a first-generation Bosnian full of spunk, sass, and humor. She graduated from SUNY Buffalo with a Bachelor of Science in Finance and received her J.D. from the University of Cincinnati College of Law. Ajla is currently a licensed attorney in Pennsylvania and when she isn’t lawyering and writing, the former Team USA Women’s Bobsled athlete (2014-2015 National Team) likes to stay active and travel. Contact Ajla at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Puerto Rico: A Sovereign State or Still a U.S. Colony? appeared first on Law Street.

On Tuesday in a dramatic escalation of the many-sided conflict in Syria, the United States, along with a coalition of Middle Eastern states, showered ISIS strongholds with airstrikes and Tomahawk cruise missiles. Lawmakers, public officials, and pundits have traded arguments over whether the United States has any interest in intervening, whether ISIS poses any threat to United States, and whether the United States has any justification in getting involved in Syria’s three and half year long civil war. In support of the strikes that started on Tuesday, President Obama has invoked several international and domestic legal justifications. Like any justifications for war, however, they aren’t completely solid.

On Tuesday, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power answered the international justification question in a letter to Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, saying that the United States has the right to carry out self-defense on behalf of Iraq.

Generally, a country can only use force in the territory of another sovereign country if it is authorized to do so by the U.N. Syria is a sovereign country, and Power’s letter to Secretary General Ban only informs him of the attacks, it doesn’t ask for his permission. However, force can be used against a sovereign country without permission if it’s for the sake of self-defense. The United States is arguing that, although Syria is a sovereign state, it isn’t doing anything to stop or weaken ISIS within its own borders, justifying the United States’ defense-based intervention.

President Obama also has to cover his bases for legal justification domestically. To that end, he told Congress on September 9th that he doesn’t need Congressional permission and that he has the authority to take action. This justification can be found in the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF). That resolution gave the President authority to:

Use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons.

The law is vague and has a wide enough breadth that it has been successfully used by the United States for continued military actions across the world.

The organizations targeted in the wording of the AUMF have generally been Al-Qaeda and the Taliban. While ISIS has its origins in Al-Qaeda and claimed to still be affiliated, Al-Qaeda officially cut ties with ISIS in February, prompting controversy over whether the president actually has the legal authority to target them without Congressional approval. But this week’s strikes didn’t target ISIS alone. The Pentagon announced that the attacks also targeted the Khorasan, a little-known terrorist group that does have connections with Al-Qaeda via Jabhat al-Nusra, another Al-Qaeda offshoot in Syria.

Additionally, an incredibly interesting facet of this conflict is that, despite the fact that Obama has previously said that he wanted to eventually repeal the AUMF, he is using it to justify strikes against ISIS. The Obama Administration’s choice of justifications has prompted questions over the president’s apparent change of heart about practicing restraint in counterterrorism. Historically, however, the expanded offensive isn’t so strange, as Obama has bombed half a dozen other countries in the Middle East and North Africa during his presidency.

Remember that just over a year ago, the United States was having the same debate about getting involved in Syria, except that Obama was then insisting that it was necessary to bomb Syrian President Assad, after his regime killed upwards of 1,400 people in a sarin gas attack. That plan was ditched at the last second when Russia made a deal with Syria to dispose of the country’s chemical weapons. But historically speaking, what Obama’s administration did on Tuesday really isn’t a departure from his foreign policy strategies.

Some Obama critics say that if Obama had gone through with those threats against Assad last year, the United States may not be in this mess with ISIS today. A common theory about how ISIS grew to be so powerful is that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad strategically watched idly by as it clashed other rebel groups, who were trying to oust him and create a democratic government, and took over large swaths of land. He even bombed the rebels as they gained ground against ISIS. He did this, some say, in order to have a legitimate claim to having a terrorist threat in Syria and lure in Western powers to help him, and not the rebels. As it turns out, Assad didn’t need to convince the West to join his side. They are, however, giving him a courteous “heads-up” about bombing his enemies.

While his administration has done its homework and technically managed to justify these new attacks on ISIS, Obama’s words and actions surrounding them don’t scream consistency, either. His backing out of the plan last year to strike Assad in Syria suggests that he may have only been talking about strikes to save face. It suggests that only when words like “Islamist” and “terrorist” are being thrown around is it necessary to take action. And using the AUMF to take those actions suggests that it’s acceptable for the president to change his position on that justification whenever it’s convenient.

Zaid Shoorbajee

Zaid Shoorbajee is a an undergraduate student at The George Washington University majoring in journalism and economics. He is from the Washington, D.C. area and likes reading and writing about international affairs, politics, business and technology (especially when they intersect). Contact Zaid at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Strikes Against ISIS in Syria: Shaky Ground for Obama Administration appeared first on Law Street.