Page 6 the Federal Government to construct a constitutional "Berlin Wall" that renders Guam's commonwealth nugatory would not be constructive for future Federal-Territorial relations. Nevertheless, it is encouraging to note at this time, however, that the Administration and the Congress are not ignoring the strident clamoring for a new order in the relationship between the Federal Government and Guam. But, it would no longer suffice to make mere cosmetic changes by switching labels from unincorporated territory to Commonwealth. After all, Commonwealth, once described by one Senatorial staffer, is not a term of art. END PART I GEORGE CASTRO EUSTAQUIO governmental Territorial and International Affairs (OTIA) at the Department of the Interior, should view the proposed Guam Commonwealth Act (HR-98) as an opportunity to forge a new relationship based not so much on mutual consent, but on mutual respect. Mutual respect requires OTIA to quickly reconcile itself to the fact that it is no longer the "U.S. Lord of the Territorial Manor. " And to abandon its notion that off-shore territories seeking to improve their political status are fugitives from feudalism! Happily, the present leadership of the House Interior and Insular Affairs Committee (and its Subcommittee) has resisted the temptation to act as "Colonial Secretary," for Uncle Sam's offshore possessions. Chairman Morris Udall and Delegate Ron DeLugo have been solicitous for the well-being of the people of Guam. It is regrettable, however, that some agencies and legal advisors are more concerned with perfecting the legal technique of governing rather than the good end that government should serve. While most of these advisors are well-intentioned, their preoccupation with the legal issues serve to hinder not only Guam's new political status aspirations, but the interest of the nation as well. There is little doubt but that the founding fathers intended the Constitution to serve the good of the nation, but not to frustrate its purpose. In 1976 when it was in Page 2 the national security interest to negotiate and ratify the Covenant with the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas Islands (CNMI) no compelling legal argument was offered to suggest that some provisions infirm". of the Covenant might be "constitutionally Not even a murmur from the Justice Department was heard in the committees of Congress, suggesting that the land alienation section in the CNMI might be violative of the 14th Amendment equal protection provision. Not too long ago also when a bill in Congress was offered to restore the balance of justice upset by the extension of the Supplemental Social Security Income (SSI) to the CNMI but not to the Americans on Guam, no representative of the Department of the Interior or Justice came forth to argue the legal merits of the bill under the equal benefit theory. Until now the position of the administration on this issue is less than forthright. Then, too, there's the blatant denial of the right to vote for the President (and Vice-President) whose daily decisions affect the lives of the people in America's off-shore areas. And there is little comfort in the knowledge that Guam products can enter the U.S. under a general system of preference, or under a more liberal application of the Headnote 3a of the USTS. Guam, as part of America, should be treated equally with other American States and its products should be accorded the benefits of the Uniformity Article of the U.S. Constitution. But the novel doctrine of "incorporation" first enunciated by U.S. Supreme Page 3 Court Justice White in the first of several Insular Cases got in the way of good government. Indeed it would be tragic if the Congress would allow the legal opinion of the Justice Department lawyers from achieving a worthwhile national purpose under a new Federal-Territorial relationship with the people of Guam. The record of the U.S. Government is replete with episodes where the legal process have been set aside because it was in the national interest to do So. The Congress, too, under its Article IV powers, had in the past authorized the development of far-flung institutions to improve the quality of life in the off-shore territories. Although progress toward self-management were often painfully slow, tortuous and incremental, and the legal process less than perfect, the end result is always in accord with the most noble tradition of the country: self-government, by and of the people. Hence, government advisors who counsel that the Congress, under its Article IV powers, the so-called Territorial Clause, cannot delegate its authority to free territorial institution from over-government by the Federal bureaucracy in Washington are doing a disservice to the agency they work for and the nation as a whole. When it comes to the management of the territories, Washington does not appear to believe that government that governs least is the best government. Likewise, the military on Guam should be sensitive and be more respectful of the needs of Guam to develop its natural resource for the benefit of its people. In this connection, the Page 4 Department of Defense should not look at the power of "eminent domain" as a license to engage in real estate brokerage. DOD should only own land on Guam required to perform its assigned mission and it should never be allowed to hold in its inventory acreage of excess land, under some pretext of future military contingency, or simply because it is customary for them to own large acreage of Guam's limited natural resources. On the other hand, Guam should not expect to receive genuine support by disregarding the roots of its relationship with the Federal Government. From the inception, Guam's value to the United States was a "coaling station" and a military outpost. For more than three scores and a decade, Guam's importance to the nation was to be strategic; hence, the Island's need for political development and economic self-sufficiency in the eyes of Washington is of secondary importance. The sections in the draft CA designed to deny the powers of eminent domain on Guam to the Department of Defense and to require the consent of the local Government on matters that are purely Federal/National in scope and application are not only ill-advised by it makes bad government. It is simply unrealistic for Guam to agitate for government powers and authority it has no capacity to enforce. Το undercut the historic relationship with the defense establishment on Guam would make approval of HR-98 extremely difficult. |