I.

INTRODUCTION

In the wake of the Spanish-American War, the United States acquired possession

of Guam, the Philippines and Puerto Rico, and these new territories gave the United

States unprecedented strategic and economic advantages over the rest of the world.1 In

pursuit of these economic and military objectives, the United States became an imperial

power and began to exercise dominance over the rest of the world.2

In this paper I will argue that through the pursuit of imperial objectives, the

United States violated the human and civil rights of the inhabitants of their newly

acquired territories out of political convenience, global strategic advantage, and economic

avarice. In colonizing the spoils of the Spanish-American War, the United States

government contradicted their ideals and customs regarding the acquisition of new land.

I intend to demonstrate that the Supreme Court was complicit with the other branches of

government in this quest for imperialism and that part of the reason for their decisions

was motivated by the elitist belief that the Anglo-Saxon civilization and traditions

somehow granted this country a divine right to exercise domain over these territories.

HISTORY OF U.S. TERRITORIAL ACQUISTION

The origins of U.S. territory acquisition began before the Constitution was written

when the Continental Congress the passed of the Ordinance of 1787. The Ordinance of

1787 was the country’s first formal procedure for admitting a new territory into the

1
Spain relinquished sovereignty over Cuba in the Treaty of Paris (See: Thomas A. Bailey, A Diplomatic
History of the American People. Ninth Edition. Pgs 474. Prentice Hall (1974)).
2
In 1898, the same year in which the Treaty of Paris was executed, the United States annexed the Hawaiian
Islands. (See: David Barnard, Law, Narrative, and The Continuing Colonialist Oppression of Native
Hawaiians, 16 Temp. Pol. & Civ. Rts. L. Rev. 1, 3 (Fall 2006)).

1
United States.i The Ordinance was developed for the land located north of the Ohio

River and to the west of the thirteen original colonies, the area also referred to as the

Northwest Territory.

The Ordinance was drafted with the purpose of gradually assimilating the

Northwest Territory into statehood and to eventually naturalize its inhabitants with full

constitutional rights. Initially, territory inhabitants were granted only limited

representational rights, having no voting rights and only one representative allowed in

Congress, but as the populations of the territories grew, the citizens of the territory would

be assured of freedoms of religion, trial by jury, due process of law, in addition to the

outlawing of slavery.ii The Ordinance of 1787 set a model for the incorporation of new

territories with its guarantee that new states and it’s inhabitants would eventually be on

equal footing with existing states in terms of constitutional rights and protections.iii

The Louisiana Purchase in 1803 raised the issue of whether new territories could

be acquired by treaty rather than by legistlation.6 Ultimately Congress answered that

question in the affirmative by determining that land acquisition by treaty is inhered to the

sovereign dominion of the United States.iv Within the plain language of the Louisiana

Purchase Treaty of 1803, the rights of inhabitants are directly addressed in Article III

“The inhabitants of the ceded territory shall be incorporated into the Union of the United

States and admitted as soon as possible according to the principles of the federal

Constitution.”v

The above question of whether Constitutional rights would be granted to

inhabitants of territories acquired by treaty seemed again answered with the Treaty of

Guadeloupe Hidalgo in 1848. The Treaty provided for the in the annexation of California

2
from Mexico. The treaty permitted all inhabitants of the area who chose not to preserve

their previous rights to be incorporated into the United States and would therefore have

full Constitutional rights.vi This would be the last major treaty the United States entered

into that provided for the full incorporation of a territory and its inhabitants.

The determination of territorial rights reached another decisive point during the

pre-civil war era, in 1857 in Dred Scott v. Sanford. The Supreme Court in Dred Scott

held that Congress alone had the final determination on the question of slavery rights in

new territories and did not conflict the Due Process Clause, and the Property Clause

under the Fifth Amendment as it applied to states. The countervailing argument in Scott

made the case for popular sovereignty, which was the idea that the inhabitants of a U.S.

Territory should be the final arbiters of which rights applied to them, to include owning

slaves. Stephen Douglass, in a debate with Abraham Lincoln at Pontiac in 1858

explained popular sovereignty as it applied to the slavery question in this way “it is more

in accordance with the genius of our Government to surrender all legislation over persons

or property, to the people concerned;” and that “no party in the Free States will legislate

to protect Slavery in the Territories, contrary to the will of the people concerned.”3

Although Dred Scott was decided in favor of slave owner rights by a 7-2 margin, one

issue on which the court was unanimous was the idea that “the form of government to be

established in acquired territories necessarily rested with the discretion of Congress”4

ORIGINS OF IMPERIALISM

The Treaty of Paris

3
4
Dred Scott v. Sanford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857)

3
 The Treaty of Paris resulting from the Spanish American War in 1898 war took

one month longer to negotiate than the war itself took to fight.5 This Treaty signified a

major divergence from Louisiana Purchase and Guadalupe Hidalgo Treaties because it

required that Congress would be the sole determinant of when and if the inhabitants of

the new territories would be granted full citizenship and when and if these territories

would ever become states.6 Thus two changes became clear: first, that the national

attitidue toward new territories and their people was different, and second, that the United

States identity as an isolationist self-sustaining country was now altered.

One reason for unuusal length of the negotiations of the Treaty was the Cuba

issue. Spain sought to grant Cuba to the America while America insisted that Cuba be a

free and independent nation, further the U.S. was uninterested in acquiring Cuba because

of the $400 million debt they would inhereit from Spain, which it had accrued in fighting

the rebels during the Cuban Insurrection.vii The other sticky issue during negotiations

was the fate of the Philippines, which President McKinley at first viewed as a savage

country without much value.viii however the knowledge that emerging business interests

in China were already being utlized by other imperial powers changed the value of the

Philipines in McKinley’s mind and upon reflecting on the trade and naval potential that

would open up as a result of a port in Manila, he soon agreed to accept the Philipines

from Spain at a price of $20 million.ix

Although it was never seriously in debate before, by the end of the 19th century,

after 1898, Congress had plenary authority over territories, regardless of how acquired. x

The difference was that in 1898, the power began to be used custodially rather than in a
5
Lazos Vargas, Sylvia R. History, Legal Scholarship, and LACRIT Theory: The Case of Racial Transformation Circe
The Spanish American War, 1896-1900. 78 University of Denver 91, at. 927 (2001).
6
Treaty of Paris, 30 Stat. 1758 (1898).

4
supervisory capacity as it was up until that point. After 1898, Congress began to direct

and control territorial governments, rather than gradually letting them assmilate by their

own choices into statehood. This treatment left the unicorporated territoies and their

inhabitants in a constitutional purgatory with no say over whether they would become a

state, and no real opportunity short of revolt to cede from territorial property status. The

remainder of this paper attempts to answer the question of what had changed within the

United States so as to cause a complete philospophcal reversal in dealing with new

territories.

THE PATH TO WAR

There were a host of factors which led to the United States entry into the Spanish

American War, but the three most prominent were: 1.)Cuban Idenpendance over Spain,

2.) The American Drive for Imperialism, 3.)and the sinking of the U.S.S. Maine.

Cuban Independance

Cuba was a Spanish colony leading into the 1890’s having already waged the

“Ten Years War” for independence from 1868 to 1878, and a simmering geurilla war

contuined thereafter.xi the Cuban people were seeking independence from Spanish

Colonial rule. By the election of 1896, both the Democratic, for reasons tied mainly to

religious expansion, and the Republicans for reasons of ecomonic expansion and military

advanatge, were in favor of interevening on behalf of the Cubans against Spain in their

stuggle for independence.xii

During the Cuban Insurrection of 1895, peasants revolted against Spain because

they had failed to institute reforms they had promised at the conslusion of the Ten Years

5
War in 1878. Upon the revolt, Spain’s military countered with brutal tactics including the

rounding up of the peasants Cubans whom they feared might provide aid and comfort to

the fighting rebels, and placing them in concentration camps in which thousands died

from disease or malnutrition.xiii Spanish General Valeriano Weyler Nicolau, also known

as “The Butcher”, was reponsible for setting up the camps and commited countless

atrocities on the detainees. The American newspaper reported consistently on Nicolau’s

brtual acts from 1895 to 1898, and the descriptions these these publications fed to the

American people caused a groundswell push toward intervention on behalf of the rebels.

American Imperialism

Although very few politicans or Supreme Court Justices used the word, Alfred T.

Mahan, the naval strategist who favored territorial expansion, most aptly defined it as

“the acquistion and holding of colonies and depnedancies” and politically speaking,

Mahan defined it as “the extension of national authority over alien communties”.xiv The

United States came to adopt this definition of imperialism by conduct if not admission

because they applied it to the lands acquired after the war.

The U.S. was the leading consumer of energy in the world by 1890 due to the

shift from an agrarian ecomony at the end of the Civil War to an industrial market which

placed business and technology at a premium.xv Signs of the times, such as the emrgence

of the industrial giants Andrew Carnegie, John D. Rockefeller, and J.P. Morgan, indicated

that expansion was imminent because these corporate giants and their monopolies began

to squeeze the laboring class to their breaking point. As was seen in the Pullman

Railroad Strike of 18947 and the Haymarket Riots of 1886xvi. Although the corporations
7
During the economic depression of 1893, the Pullman Palace Car Company severely cut wages and the
railroad workers went on strike in response. The strike had a far reaching affect on United States because

6
were not all in favor of imperialism per se, they all had practical business interests in

expending trade routes and opening up new markets overseas in order to lower their

business costs and acquire more resource capital.xvii

Concepts of Manifest Destiny and Social Darwinism were underlying fuel

supplied to the imperialist fire.

U.S.S. Maine

William McKinley, elected in 1896, was a pragmatic politician and was not

anxious to push for war with Spain. However, two significant events both occuring within

days of the other would alter McKinley’s perspective. In the first incident, the Spanish

Minister in the United States, Enrquie Dupuy De Lome, wrote a letter to an associate in

Cuba in which Dupuy De Lome called McKinley “weak” an insignficant “would be

politican” and a “bidder for the crowd who tries to leave a door open behind himself

while keeping on good terms with the jingoes of his party.” xviii William Randolph

Hearst’s New York Journal intercepted a copy of the letter and published it nationally

creating embarrassment for the president.

One week after the Dupay De Lome letter was published in the Journal, the USS

Maine exploded on February 15, 1898. News of Maine explosion, depite its unkown

cause at the time, was exacerbated by the “yellow press”. Hearst’s New York Journal,

and Joeseph Pulitzer’s New York World held a virtual monopoly on information. These

two magnates, by virtue of their enoromous circulations, influenced national opinion to a

great extent both papers insisted abd sensationalized that Spain had destroyed the U.S.S.

of the reliance on the railroad system and eventually, US marshals and the U.S. Army Troops were called in
to quell the strike due to interference with mail delivery.

7
Maine and called for U.S. retailation. Following the demise of the U.S.S. Maine and at

McKinley’s request, Congress approved a declaration of war.xix

IMPERIALISM AND THE SUPREME COURT

The members of the Supreme Court from 1898 to 1922, are in effect the legal

arhcitects of territorial incorporation. The two justices who figure most prominently are

Edward D. White, who would become the Chief Justice in 1910 and Henry B. Brown.

As discussed, the Doctrine of Incrorporation was defined in Downes, and it was Justice

Brown who defined it by answering the question of whether the Constitution would apply

in new territories.

Brown announced the distinction that it was up to Congress to decide if the

Constitution would apply and that Congress was only limited by Consitional provisions

which expresly forbade a Congressional decision regarding the territory. Justice White

further this distinction in a concurring opinion which was the precursor to the

incorporated versus nonincorporation classification which arguably would later become

the key fault line in all the insular cases.

I believe White’s concurrence in Downes hinted at the court’s concern over

whether a territory demonstrated a general fitness for statehood and that is why he created

the unicorportaed versus incorporated distinction. It was because White knew that certain

territories might not be worth having a states, that he defined incorporation as he did.

For example, believing possibly that the Phillipines was a place where the United

States needed to gain control over possible civil unrest the court held in Dorr v. United

States that a trial by jury for the offense of criminal libel was not a right owed to an

8
individual within an unincorporated territory. The facts of the case were that the Plaintiff,

a was a member Philippine Commission,8 prosecuted the defendants who were the editors

of the newspaper ‘Manila Freedom.’ The Plaintiff was the prosecuting witness against

another editor from a different publication on trial for the same crime of criminal libel,

and that defendant read to the court what was actually written as evidence of it’s truth in

his libel defense. The defendants in Dorr printed their account of what was read by that

defendant in ‘Manila Freedom’ and called him a “Traitor, Seducer and a Perjurer”, and

for this they were prosecuted for criminal libel and denied a Grand Jury or a Jury at

Trial.xx

The Supreme Court trial by jury is not a fundamental right and therefore not

applicable to an unincorporated territory. In dicta, Justice Day commented that a jury

trial is not a trial suited for Filipino people and the “uncivilized parts of the archipelago

were wholly unfitted to exercise the right of trial by jury.”9

In Dorr, The Court focused on the extended the view that inhabitants of

unicorporated territories are less able to operate a sophisiticated government and said that

Congress couls control their activities indefintely and that the inhabitants “are not of right

entitled to participate in political authority until the territory becomes a state. Meantime

they are in a condition of temporary pupilage and dependence; and while Congress will

be expected to recognize the principle of self-government to such extent as may seem

wise, its discretion alone can constitute the measure by which the participation of the

people can be determined.”xxi

8
The Philippine Commission was a body appointed by the President McKinley to exercise legislative and
limited executive and judicial powers in the Philippines. It was first appointed in 1901. In 1907, the
Commission acted as the upper house of a bicameral legislature, with the elected Philipine Assembly acting
as lower house. (See: Wikipedia, at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine_Commission )
9
Dorr v. United States, 195 US 138, 145 (1904)

9
 The conduct of the Philippine Commission taken together with holding in Dorr

provides evidnce of the imperial goals of the United States. The Taft Commission was the

second attempt at an imperial government because the first Philippine Commission had to

be beefed up after a bloody Philippine insurrection which began in February of 1899, and

lasted two years.xxii There is another less obvious reason for the courts to determine that

grand jury and jury trial are not fundamental. If the goal of the imperial power is to

control the colony to serve it’s interest, then they would want to control the courts to the

greatest extent possible, and sine the government they establsihed appointed the judges,

the last thing they would want are citizens have an active role in deciding guilt or

inncocence and shaping the laws.

There is another very obvious contradiction to facts of Dorr. In Dorr the suit was for libel

against the editors of the local newspaper who printed allegations about a Philippine

Commission Member, which they believed to be true. The court never addresses the first

amendment rights of the reporters although, in other cases, the 1st Amendment has always

been held fundamental even in unincorporated territories. In Downs v. Bid well, the

court announced that Congress is limited only by the Federal Constitution in making

rules and regulations applicable to a conquered territory...

When an act of Congress an act of Congress is required to extend “non-

fundamental” constitutional rights and protections to the inhabitants of unincorporated

territories. This limitation on application of the federal constitution is based, in part, on

the need to preserve Congress’ ability to govern territorial possessions, and may be

10
overruled by Congress. A legislative determination that a constitutional provision may

practically and beneficially be implemented in a territory is entitled to great weight.

Immediately following the Treaty of Paris, there were a number of strategic, ecomonic

and moral questions which remained to be answred regarding the treatment of the

inhabitants of the newly acquired territories. In dealing with each of these territories,

Congress and the Supreme Court were faced with determining the issue of whether the

Constitution would “follow the flag”. Meaning that the moment the US flag was raised,

full constitutions rights must follow to follow the people.

Once the lands resulting from the Treaty came into U.S. posession, President McKinley

became increasingly concerned with the treatment of the territorial populations of Cuba,

Puetro Rico and the Phillipines and his goal was at once to protect these new assets from

outside attack while ruling these territories consistent with the interests and wishes of

their citizens. In 1899, McKinley ordered his newly appointed Secretary of War, Elihu

Root to handle the integration of the colonial government into the American system for

all the islands ceded by Spain to the US.xxiii

Root was fortunate that in the week he took control of Puero Rico, a hurricane struck the

island killing over 2,000 people and decimating the island’s crops. Root took this

opportunity to transform the U.S. Army into a relief coprs and estblished massive

vacination programs, built new schools, and through his lobbying efforts, passed

legistlation allowong for Peurto Rican Products to be shipped within the United States

and sold without having to pay a duty tax.xxiv In addition, Root determined that the

existing legal framework established by Spain was more beneficial for the Puerto Rican

people than attempting an atempting a massive legal overhaul by promugating the

11
Amercian system remarking that the Spanish legal sysetm was far better than anyhting

which the “we could produce out of own experience.”xxv

Root believed that the people of the Puerto Rico were less sophisticated and unqualified

for independent government or autonomous self-rule and because of this took a measured

approach to implementing an American system of laws and civility. Root’s concept for

Puerto Rico came alive when Congress passed the Foraker Act on May 1 1900. The Act

allowed for the exchange of the military governing structure remaining from the war to a

civil government with an American appointed governor as executive officer of the island

who was advised by bi-cameral legislature. The citizens elected the lower house, but the

upper chamber was selected in the United States.xxvi

From human rights standpoint, the Foraker Act made into law a system in which

the inhabitants of Puerto Rico held subseviant roles to that of the United States. And this

relationship was solidified by the Supreme Court in their opinion in Downes v. Bidwell.

In Downes, a New York fruit importer challenged the taxes the government charged him

for fruit imported from Puetro Rico. The plaintiff asserted that the duty taxes on Puerto

Rico goods violated the Uniformity Clause of the Constitution, which requires equal duty

and import tax through the United States.10 However, if under the doctrine of

incorporation, Puerto Rico was deemed not a part of the U.S. even though it is subject to

its rules, led to the court to conclude that Congress could disregard the requirement of

uniformity when legislating for Puerto Rico.

The decision in Downes reflected the elitist and imperialist attitude of the United

States in all dimensions. American popular opinion at the time held the belief that

10
US Const Art I, § 8, cl 1

12
inhabitants of the newly acquired territories were not sophicated enough to comprehend

U.S. politcal systemsxxvii And the Supreme Court was unwilling to grant full citizenship

to the people of Puerto Rico because they understood that Congress was attempting to

preserve as much strategic flexibility as possible in dealing with territories. And the court

was aware that the new territories could easily become an unpopular burden to the

country based on the sentiments of the public.xxviii

With these conditions present, the Supreme Court created a bifurcated formula for

determining the rights of a territory; whether a territory was incorporated, or destined for

statehood, or whether it was unincorporated, and not at present destined for same. This

Territorial Incorporation Doctrine “TID” was the tool the court provided Congress to

avoid being saddled with the reponsibilities a government owes to full citizens.

The result of the TID was that the United States turned away from a century old

custom established by President Jefferson in the Northwest Ordinance. In short because

Congress was not yet certain that making Puerto Rico a state would benefit their interests,

they created the doctrine of incorporation and the court assisted them in shaping the

theory while ignoring the civil rights of the territorial inhabitants.

The facts and circumstances surrounding the territory acquisition in the wake of

the Treaty of Paris demonstrate that the United States now had its sights set on becoming

an imperial power.xxix For the first time in American history, territories were no longer

acquired with the ultimate goal of making them a state, territories were acquired now as if

they were capital or strategic assets and the United States acquired these territories with

no clear intention to make them into states, effectively leaving the inhabitants of these

territories in a permanent state of limbo.

13
 Justice White’s opinion in Downes reflects the elitist idea held by Root and the

U.S. in considering the granting of full citizenship to those whom they considered to be

unworthy of it. White opined in Downes that giving the inhabitants of Puerto Rico,

would be gravely detrimental to the and would degrade the current standard of

citizenship. White suggested that the immediate granting of full citizenship to Puerto

Rico’s inhabitants would be a mistake because the natives were “absolutely unfit to

receive it.xxx

After Downes, unincorporated territories had only fundamental rights which were

determined by congressional discretion. Within unincorporated territories where no

direct control over the constitution could be asserted, fundamental rights were loosely

defined as rights which applied to citizens that are so important to the underlying

purposes of the constitution, that they could not be transgressed.9 Thus it became

relatively simple for Congress and the Court to define what was fundamental selectively

in each case.

Supreme Court Insular Decisions

Historically, in deciding cases where territorial rights were at issue, the Supreme

Court had by precedent deferred to the judgment of Congress. The court articulated this

position in 1879 in National Bank v. County of Yankton,11 saying that the territories are

organized a mere subdivisions of the “outlying dominion of the United States”, compared

the territories relationship to the national government to that of a county within a state,

and said that the pre-existing organic territorial regulations should be followed only to the

11
101 U.S. 129 (1879)

14
extent that they do not conflict with Congressional intent.12 And ruled consistently

throughout the insular cases that the Constitution applies fully to the incorporated areas

off the United States and only “fundamental rights” would apply to unincorporated

territories. Territory that has been relinquished to the United States and annexed but not

yet made a state was considered unicorporated.8

Finally in 1922 the court decided in Balzac v. Porto Rico,12 that the extension of all

constitutional rights, including trial by jury, was inappropriate for people who had lived

under the locally administered civil law traditions for centuries. Only territories

incorporated within the United States or those acquired with promise of incorporation

were governed by the Constitution in all aspects. The Court in Balzac concluded that

even though Congress had extended many of the benefits of citizenship to Puerto Ricans,

that action did not constitute incorporation because that status requires express

congressional enactment.

Thus, by the end of the insular period, unincorporated territories were subject to the

whims and desires of congress while incorporated territories seems to have a more

complete package of rights, although the court never expressly said whether even

incorporated territories had the full bundle of Constitutional rights.

12
258 U.S. 298 (1922)

15
i
Fogner, Eric. & Garraty, John. A. The Reader’s Companion to American History, pg. 796. Houghton Mifflen Co. 1991.
ii
Linklater, Andro. Measuring America, How an Untamed Wilderness Shaped the United States and Fulfilled the Promise of
Democrasy. pp. 312. Walker Publishing Company, 2002.
iii
Fogner, Eric. & Garraty, John. A. The Reader’s Companion to American History, pg. 796. Houghton Mifflen Co. 1991
6
iv
Alan Tauber, The Empire Forgotten: The Application of the Bill of Rights to U.S. Territories, 57 Case W. Res. L. Rev. 147,
152, (2006).
v
Alan Tauber, The Empire Forgotten: The Application of the Bill of Rights to U.S. Territories, 57 Case W. Res. L. Rev. 147,
152, (2006).
vi
Alan Tauber, The Empire Forgotten: The Application of the Bill of Rights to U.S. Territories, 57 Case W. Res. L. Rev. 147,
153, (2006).
vii
Thomas A. Bailey, A Diplomatic History of the American People. Ninth Edition. Pgs 471-473. Prentice Hall (1974).
viii
Ibid.
ix
Ibid.
x
T. Alexander Aleinikoff, Puerto Rico and the Constitution: Condumdrums and Prospects, 11 Const. Comment. 15, 17
(1994)
xi
Johnson, Paul. A History of the American People. pp. 1088; Harper Collins 1998.
xii
Id.
xiii
Ivan Musicant, Empire By Default, The Spanish American War and the Dawn of the American Century. pg 256 pp 740,
Henry Holt and Company Inc. 2002.
xiv
Zimmerman, Warren. First Great Triumph, How Five Americans Made Their Country a World Power. pg 13; Farrar,
Straus and Giroux, 2002.
xv
Zimmerman, Warren. First Great Triumph, How Five Americans Made Their Country a World Power. Farrar, Straus and
Giroux, 2002.
xvi
James Green, Death In The Haymarket, A Story of Chicago, The First Labor Movement and the Bombing that Divided
the Guilded Age In America. Pantheon Books, (2006)
xvii
Zimmerman, Warren. First Great Triumph, How Five Americans Made Their Country a World Power. Pg. 26-27. Farrar,
Straus and Giroux, 2002.
xviii
Zimmerman, Warren. First Great Triumph, How Five Americans Made Their Country a World Power. Farrar, Straus
and Giroux, 2002.
xix
Ivan Musicant, Empire By Default, the Spanish American War and the Dawn of The American Century, pg 184, pp. 740,
Henry Holt and Company (1998).
xx
Dorr v. United States, 195 US 138, 149 (1904)
xxi
Ibid. (Citing: ’Cooley, Principles of Const. Law, 164.)
xxii
Ivan Musicant, Empire By Default, The Spanish American War and the Dawn of the American Century. pg 628 pp 740,
Henry Holt and Company Inc. 2002.
xxiii
Zimmerman, Warren. First Great Triumph, How Five Americans Made Their Country a World Power. Farrar, Straus
and Giroux, 2002.
xxiv
Ibid. at 369.
xxv
Ibid at 369.
xxvi
. Torruella Juan R. The Supreme Court and Puerto Rico: The Doctrine of Separate and Unequal, Published by Editorial UPR, 1985;
320 p.p.

xxvii
T. Alexander Aleinikoff, Puerto Rico and the Constitution: Condumdrums and Prospects, 11 Const. Comment. 15, 25
(1994)
xxviii
Id.
xxix
Christina Duffy Burnett, United States: American Expansion and Territorial Deannexation, 72 U. Chi. L. Rev. 797, 800
(2005)
xxx
Case western Law Law review.
9
1
8