Page 14 - Suffolk University Law Review
P. 14
7) THE EVOLUTIONOFDEMOCRATICGOVERNANCE 601
Under this approach, if each line stems from different sources, then the double
jeopardy exception applies.87 If the parallel lines converge at the point of
departure, then the double jeopardy exception does not apply.88
In this case, the sovereignty of Puerto Rico, as discussed in Sanchez Valle,
and the sovereignty of Congress, although currently two separate lines,
converge at their original departure point.89 For this reason, the U.S. Supreme
Court explained that "there is no getting away from the past. "9ยบ When the lines
representing each sovereign, Puerto Rico and Congress, are drawn to the past to
determine if the double jeopardy exception applies, it becomes clear that
Congress is the ultimate source of Puerto Rico's prosecutorial power.
Concluding its analysis, the U.S. Supreme Court did not just look to the past,
but also looked to the present and the future, stating, "Puerto Rico boasts 'a
relationship to the United States that has no parallel in our history. "'91 Since
the events of the early 1950s, an integral aspect of this relationship has been the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico's wide-ranging self-rule, exercised under its
own constitution. As a result, Puerto Rico today can avail itself of a wide
variety of possible futures. 92
111. INVENTIVE STA TESMANSHIP AND A PATH TO DEMOCRACY
The U.S. Supreme Court's remarks in Sanchez Valle, calling Puerto Rico's
relationship with the United States one "that has no parallel in our history,"
places the Commonwealth in the range of inventive statesmanship that
Frankfurter envisioned in his 1914 memorandum.93 These words acknowledge
an exercise of territorial power capable of incorporating the fundamental values
of liberty and government by consent, and consequently acknowledge the
87. See id. (describing when separate sovereigns may bring successive prosecutions).
88. See id. (explaining even if lines later diverge from common point, successive prosecutions not
allowed).
89. See id. at 1874-75 (deciding United States and Puerto Rico may not charge same person for same
crime). Citing Waller v. Florida, and drawing from the Puerto Rico Supreme Court aod amici curiae briefs, the
U.S. Supreme Court analogized Puerto Rico's relationship with the United States to tbat of a county or
rnunicipality with the state in which it is located. See id. at 1872 (noting city received initial prosecutoria1
power from states); Waller v. Florida, 397 U.S. 387, 395 (1970). The Court noted that there is no dual
sovereignty in either relationship. See Sanchez Valle, 136 S. Ct. at 1872-73 (recognizing municipality derived
powers from state, and territory derived power from United States). Toe Court presents this anaJogy to validate
tbe idea that, where a sovereign obtains its powers from another sovereign, they are coosidered a single
sovereign for Fifth Amendment purposes. See id. at 1874-75. This is an example of how separate entities,
emanating from a common origin, can still lead to differences in the way the rwo entities function and
constitute their juridical acts,
90. See Sanchez Valle, 136 S. Ct. at 1876 (tracing Puerto Rico's autbority back to "U.S. Capitel").
9 l. See id. (elaborating on relationship between United States and Puerto Rico). If the relationship with
Puerto Rico is unparalleled in history, then Puerto Rico's relationship with the United States cannot be a
territorial one, because territorial relationships are abundant in United States history.
92. See Puerto Rico v. Sanchez Valle, 136 S. Ct. 1863, 1876 (2016) (providing historicaJ basis for Puerto
Rico's ability to self-govern).
93. See id. (equating Law 600 to inventive statesmanship).
Under this approach, if each line stems from different sources, then the double
jeopardy exception applies.87 If the parallel lines converge at the point of
departure, then the double jeopardy exception does not apply.88
In this case, the sovereignty of Puerto Rico, as discussed in Sanchez Valle,
and the sovereignty of Congress, although currently two separate lines,
converge at their original departure point.89 For this reason, the U.S. Supreme
Court explained that "there is no getting away from the past. "9ยบ When the lines
representing each sovereign, Puerto Rico and Congress, are drawn to the past to
determine if the double jeopardy exception applies, it becomes clear that
Congress is the ultimate source of Puerto Rico's prosecutorial power.
Concluding its analysis, the U.S. Supreme Court did not just look to the past,
but also looked to the present and the future, stating, "Puerto Rico boasts 'a
relationship to the United States that has no parallel in our history. "'91 Since
the events of the early 1950s, an integral aspect of this relationship has been the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico's wide-ranging self-rule, exercised under its
own constitution. As a result, Puerto Rico today can avail itself of a wide
variety of possible futures. 92
111. INVENTIVE STA TESMANSHIP AND A PATH TO DEMOCRACY
The U.S. Supreme Court's remarks in Sanchez Valle, calling Puerto Rico's
relationship with the United States one "that has no parallel in our history,"
places the Commonwealth in the range of inventive statesmanship that
Frankfurter envisioned in his 1914 memorandum.93 These words acknowledge
an exercise of territorial power capable of incorporating the fundamental values
of liberty and government by consent, and consequently acknowledge the
87. See id. (describing when separate sovereigns may bring successive prosecutions).
88. See id. (explaining even if lines later diverge from common point, successive prosecutions not
allowed).
89. See id. at 1874-75 (deciding United States and Puerto Rico may not charge same person for same
crime). Citing Waller v. Florida, and drawing from the Puerto Rico Supreme Court aod amici curiae briefs, the
U.S. Supreme Court analogized Puerto Rico's relationship with the United States to tbat of a county or
rnunicipality with the state in which it is located. See id. at 1872 (noting city received initial prosecutoria1
power from states); Waller v. Florida, 397 U.S. 387, 395 (1970). The Court noted that there is no dual
sovereignty in either relationship. See Sanchez Valle, 136 S. Ct. at 1872-73 (recognizing municipality derived
powers from state, and territory derived power from United States). Toe Court presents this anaJogy to validate
tbe idea that, where a sovereign obtains its powers from another sovereign, they are coosidered a single
sovereign for Fifth Amendment purposes. See id. at 1874-75. This is an example of how separate entities,
emanating from a common origin, can still lead to differences in the way the rwo entities function and
constitute their juridical acts,
90. See Sanchez Valle, 136 S. Ct. at 1876 (tracing Puerto Rico's autbority back to "U.S. Capitel").
9 l. See id. (elaborating on relationship between United States and Puerto Rico). If the relationship with
Puerto Rico is unparalleled in history, then Puerto Rico's relationship with the United States cannot be a
territorial one, because territorial relationships are abundant in United States history.
92. See Puerto Rico v. Sanchez Valle, 136 S. Ct. 1863, 1876 (2016) (providing historicaJ basis for Puerto
Rico's ability to self-govern).
93. See id. (equating Law 600 to inventive statesmanship).
