C-Day D-Day

It's 12:42 AM this manic Monday morning. I'm up reading cases for this Wednesday's Covenant Day debate. On this here dining room table, I've sprawled across the cluttered mesa an array of "[defendant name here] versus [prosecutor name here]"s's's's; and no that is not grammatically correct, and yes that is ironic given the grammatically correct nature of legal jargon and the time I've spent sitting on this hard chair reading page after page of the grammatically correct black print. Can you imagine what it would be like if case summaries had pictures in them?

*bubbleplopbubblelightbulbplopding!*
TEXT: Justice Blackmun gave an opinion...
PICTURE: Blackmun, wearing Greco-Roman toga, holding the trident of Poseidon.
*bubbleplopbubblelightbulbplopding!*
Text: District Judge Mathers dissented...
PICTURE: Mathers illustrated as putrid rat being dipped into ocean as his tail dangles from the gargantuan fingertips of the ever-so-ever-more gargantuan Justice Blackmun who smiles free-spiritedly 'like a fat kid loves cake'.
*bubbleplopbubblelightbulbplopding!ding!*

Ok. I'm being nonsensical. But, you know what else is? What else is nonsensical?? Do you know?! Can you possibly know?!?

Well... Ok, scrub that. Erase it. White-out it out.

The formalities of legal jargon annoy me because I'd rather have cases be straight to the point. I don't know about other people, but I have to dissect the language to get what the thing is saying. THE THING. It's so incomprehensible to me that I label THE THING after a 70's/80's corny horror flick. THE THING. Bwah!

I think it's just because I'm new to the diction and funky syntax. Give it a while and it'll sink in.

Anyway...moving on to other stuff.

Here's another thought I want to share:
WHAT IN THE MILKY WAY DOES IT MEAN TO BE A COMMONWEALTH?

When I was a wee todd-todd, I was told that I live in the "Commonwealth" of the Northern Mariana Islands. I was told that we aren't a state. We aren't a US territory (as some have said, others beg to differ). We are a "commonwealth".

According to Wikipedia (lol, I wanted fast, succinct info), the world "commonwealth" holds its etymology in the English "Common Wealth" or "Common Weal". Older historical derivations say that the "commonwealth" was a reference to "welfare", or 'common' welfare. I say that this shares the same concept of the "common good"--the good of the entire society, or "general welfare". So...how did that transmute into a TYPE of society? Hai...

The Covenant said that we are a in "polical union" with the United States; it established that we are a 'commonwealth'. But what does that mean?

Well... I read that, during the 18th century and during the tenure of the Articles of the Confederation, some American colonies referred to themselves as colonies. According to the "Letric Law Library", a commonwealth is defined as:

"A commonwealth is properly a free state or republic, having a popular or representative government. The term has been applied to the government of Great Britain. It is not applicable to absolute governments. The states composing the United States are, properly, so many commonwealths."

Through my interpretation of a "free state or republic", I say that this was a reference to the relative sovereignty of each colony. Some commonwealths are very much like coalitions--they lightly tie inherently independent sovereign nations to one flag. If this be true, then the Articles of Confed. was the document that established the "commonwealth" of the American Colonies.

How does this apply to the "C"-NMI?

Take this idea of inherent independence and sovereignty. In my standpoint (you can't take this to be fact, only opinion), since the CNMI was unlawfully claimed by Japan (opinion), the United States upon defeating Japan and overtaking the Marianas decided it best not to claim illegit property (opinion). In that respect, we, as NMI inhabitants, had inherent sovereignty over ourselves and the government we desired. Thus, the United States had to give us the option of choosing our political stance: TTPI, Independent, Commonwealth, US territory... Now, as we all now, we chose to be a commonwealth and through the weight of the CNMI Covenant maintained jurisdiction over labor and immigration.

This is what gets me:
If, through our Covenant, the CNMI has sole jurisdiction over labor and immigration, does that imply that all other US National laws apply? I.e. the US Constitution?

Ok. We know that every state has its own constitution. We also know that through Article IV of the US Constitution, states are guaranteed jurisdiction over all laws not mentioned in the Constitution; meaning they could decide on voting, abortion, capital punishment, etc. Article 1 of the CNMI Constitution, entitled 'Personal Rights', resembles the US Bill of Rights (Amendment 1). Ours explicitly mentions abortion, health environments, privacy, and capital punishment--unlike the US Constitution. If there are state constitutions that resemble our's (Art. I) then I'll drop this matter. But if there aren't...does that imply that we have more jurisdiction over our laws than do states? (Or...have we been making unnecessary inclusions to our Constitution?)

Perhaps I'm losing my head.

Ok, to make sense of what I just said. In Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court ruled that prohibition of abortion abridges a woman's (implied) right to privacy. In the Marianas, we explicitly say a woman can't have an abortion (except in certain legal...forgot the word...in short, it's prohibited but there may be cases where it could be allowed; Article 1 Section 9 I think). Does the CNMI's legal enumeration on Roe v. Wade imply wider jurisdiction over our laws, and thus greater sovereignty over ourselves? Keep in mind, I'm working on what I know. I've still much to learn.

I've got so many questions to ask. In truth, the most basic questions are the most difficult. I'll save them for later.

Here's a recent question, though: What is difference between having a law be 'statutory' or in the constitution?

According to a summary on a recent CNMI case (where the defendant motioned to have non-citizens included in his jury array), it was stated that, in the CNMI, "the right to a trial by jury in the CNMI is statutory, not constitutional".

WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?

I know that Article 1 of the CNMI Const. says that trial by jury is made available in criminal and civil cases, but it also says something about the legislature being involved. I can't cite it at the moment; it's fallen out of my memory, but I do have some questions on that. Does that violate the concept on the separation of powers? Does the concept of separating powers apply to a "commonwealth" (the same way it applies to states)? Isn't the US Constitution supposed to be the "Supreme Law of the Land"--meaning it has to, HAS TO apply to us in the CNMI? Doesn't it?

Hai adai.... that's not even half of what I want to know. That doesn't even hit the Covenant Day debate topic yet!

RESOLVE: WHETHER JURORS IN ALL JURY TRIALS IN THE CNMI SHOULD BE COMPRISED OF ALL CNMI RESIDENTS INCLUDING NON-US CITIZENS.

Today, Laura, Donghee, and I got together to pool our research. The debate is in three days, and honestly, it seems as though we're all in the beginning process of formulating our arguments. I know I am. I just started reading the cases they gave us today. O_O Or..yesterday, it's already 1 AM lol. Like Lincoln-Douglas debates, we have to research both sides, except unlike Lincoln-Douglas, you only argue for one side and only argue once on the day. I really want to understand this topic. I'm starting at the basics, because that's what I need right now (in order to understand it as much as I want to). The beauty and tragedy of these debates is that the topic is greater than the win or lose, greater than the debate itself. I guess that's why I'm so glad over the debators agreeing to pool research. We'd rather not have a debate won based on the opponent missing information. We'd rather have it won based on logic. Anyway... Ugh. I need to finish reading these. It's such a..."tense" issue.

What makes me..."unbiased" I guess you could say is that my mom is a non-US citizen (green card holder) and my dad is. All of the debators, actually, have origins not from here but are all born here. I feel like we are arguing for the generations before us. I'd prefer not to get personal.

Well... Here's to a Happy Easter! :) A great Spring Break! (Much deserved by all) And... Having the means to every end be as successful as the end. lol. Nonsensical.

Morning, Folks. ;)