I’m writing this because I think the best place to start is with the question raised by Mr. Sablan: To repeal, to retain, or to abolish altogether Article XII? First of all, repeal and abolish means the same thing, which makes it a two-prong test that the people will face in 2011 — retain or abolish. To answer the critical question you only need to know that Article XII is in “direct violation” of the U.S. Constitution — meaning the people MUST change Article XII or be ready for another round of federalization on land ownership. Furthermore, the CNMI was duly warned in the Covenant talks so we can’t say — we didn’t know.
I’m sure the people of the CNMI don’t want it to come to the feds stepping in as we should have learned our lessons well from immigration and wage expectations of the federal government. If the people do choose to retain Article XII in 2011 it will only take ONE U. S. citizen to complain to a federal court for the federal government to step in and create some form of EQUALITY in land ownership for every U. S. citizen in the CNMI.
I think it is obvious and clearly common sense that the people of the CNMI MUST abolish Article XII or ELSE! Now we are at least on first base with this issue if we can all agree Article XII is in violation of federal law and that we must get rid of it. My only concern is who will vote on this — only indigenous people or every U. S. citizen who has voted in past elections. To deny U. S. citizens with children of indigenous ancestry to vote would indeed be a miscarriage of justice to fellow citizens and their children.
To get to second base on this issue there needs to be a plan developed as to how the people of the CNMI can abolish Article XII and still retain a certain level of “indigenous priority for future land use.” I took the first question because it was a no-brainer but this second question requires that the answer be collaborative and sold to all the voters which no one person in going to do. But I can say that everyone should be thinking about how to fix this rather than trying to stop or delay the inevitable implementation of the principle of equality in the ownership of land. One people one direction to become part of the solution and not the problem.
AMBROSE M. BENNETT
Kagman III, Saipan
