these representatives who are directly answerable to them in regular elections. As last November's elections demonstrated so clearly, when our representatives become too distant from the interests of the people they represent, they are replaced. In our system, therefore, truly meaningful participation in the democratic process means that we are able to vote for these representatives who adopt legislation and oversee its implementation on our behalf. If this fundamental right to elect representatives were not to exist, we would be forced to rely largely upon the largess of leaders who others select on our behalf, or who select themselves as in a dictatorship, and over whom we have no control. Such a system, however, would be an anathema to us. It directly contradicts the intentions of our founding fathers and is utterly inconsistent with the principles of democracy. In fact, the United States has throughout its history lead the fight against just this sort of tyranny, most recently in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, and, as a result, we have all witnessed in awe the destruction of the Soviet dictatorship. C. Today the United States Actively Supports These During the 1980's promotion of democratic But principles increasingly became a theme of foreign policy or, at the very least, an often debated issue over the role it ought to play. Ultimately, it became a campaign issue. During his campaign, President Clinton focused on it as a fundamental tenet of his foreign policy. His commitment to encourage the establishment of democracies around the world is of such import that, in early January, Secretary of State-designate Warren Christopher sought a special meeting with proponents of the democracy movement within the Democratic Party to reaffirm the campaign pledge to make the promotion of democracy a key component of the new Administration's foreign policy.2 By now, some may be asking why the basic civics lecture? Is this American commitment to democracy not self evident? But for others this discussion, raised at a conference on territories with a theme of "A Time for Change," is not surprising at all. America today remains a colonial power with distant possessions, the inhabitants of which, many of whom are citizens of the United States, do not have the same rights to participate in our representative democracy enjoyed by the citizens of the several States.' If the citizens of the territories maintain their residence in the territories, they do not elect voting members of either the House and Senate and cannot vote for the President. They are effectively excluded from the most fundamental aspect of our democratic system. As a result, laws are adopted for them and implemented by persons appointed and consented to by a President and Congress they did not elect. 2 See Washington Post, January 9, 1993, at A9. The principal territories of the United States include: American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. Qualifying residents of each of these except American Samoa hold U.S. citizenship. American Samoans are nationals of the United States. The circumstance of the people of Guam today is the direct consequence of almost 100 years of colonialism supported by court precedent which holds that Guam is subject to the unfettered will of a government in which it does not participate. The fundamental question which the people of Guam and, indeed, all territories must ask today is similar to that question asked by the leaders of the civil rights movement in the 1960's: can a nation founded on the principle that all its people are created equal continue to deny basic human rights to some of them solely because they live in the territories? II. THE PEOPLE OF THE TERRITORIES ARE EXCLUDED FROM THE DEMOCRATIC PROCESS AT THE NATIONAL LEVEL BY THE CONSTITUTION A. The Beginning of Guam's Quest for Self-Determination Set against this background of exclusion from rather than inclusion in the democratic process, the people of Guam now seek to restructure their relationship with the United States. In 1987, Guam, in two plebiscites, approved a draft Commonwealth Act designed to begin the self-determination process. A fundamental objective of the quest for Commonwealth is to extricate Guam from a system under which those who the people of Guam do not elect act on their behalf. Ironically, it is the United States Constitution itself which has been used to bar the people of Guam and of all the territories from full participation in the democratic process, and has been used to lock them in a dependency on those they do not elect. In fact, absent the agreement of Congress, the people of the 46-318 98-14 territories have no right to participate in the political process at all. The source of the dilemma is Congress' power under Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 of the Constitution, the Territorial Clause, which states that "[t]he Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States." B. Interpreted the The Supreme Court Has Broadly The Supreme Court has consistently interpreted Congress' power under the Territorial Clause broadly and long ago concluded that "Congress, in the government of the Territories...has plenary power, save as controlled by the provisions of the Constitution." Binns v. United States, 194 U.S. 486, 491 (1904). Justice White in his opinion in Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901), generally viewed as the seminal opinion on the status of territories, described the breadth of Congress' power over the territories under the Territorial Clause. The Constitution has undoubtedly conferred on Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. at 289-290. The Supreme Court explained further its view that Congress has the broadest possible authority over the territories in Dorr v. United States, 195 U.S. 138 (1904). Congress has unquestionably full power to Dorr v. United States, 195 U.S. at 148. C. Guan Marches Squarely to the Beat of the Federal Drummer Perhaps no expression describes more starkly the plight of the American territories than that given by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in three separate rulings dealing with the political status of Guam. Beginning in 1982, the Ninth Circuit stated in People v. Okada, 694 F.2d 565, 568 (9th Cir. 1982) that Congress has the power to legislate directly Three years later, the Ninth Circuit expanded on this theme in Sakamoto v. Duty Free Shoppers, Ltd., 764 F.2d 1285, 1286 (9th Cir. 1985) holding that Guam "enjoy[s] only such powers as may be delegated to it by Congress.... As such, "the government of Guam is an instrumentality of the federal government over which the |