The 51 Star Flag
For many years, Attorney Igartua has fought in the US Courts to obtain the constitutional right of the US citizens in Puerto Rico to be able to vote for the President of the United States. Here again the Courts decided against our plea. I am very disappointed with the judges and their decision.
Igartua had asked me to be a plaintiff in the case and I declined since I was caring then for my husband who eventually passed away around the same time the case was filed.
Gregg has been persistent and patient with the courts, and has spent quite a large amount of his own money in requesting hearings and appealing decisions. He has my full support in this endeavor.
Other attempts through the various US officials have gone ignored, and that includes the Presidency and Congress.
I'm sure that our fellow citizens in the other 50 states believe and support that people who have been US citizens for over 100 years should be able to vote for the President of their own nation! RIGHT? Isn't that 100% American?
EXCUSE ME!??.... But isn't that what we are fighting for in foreign countries? ....so people can have democracy and vote for their leaders?
HELLO! We need some help here my friends! Call or write your Congressman! Your papers! Say something! Do something!
IGARTÚA v. U.S. GREGORIO IGARTÚA, ET AL., Plaintiffs, Appellants,v.UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ET AL., Defendants, Appellees. No. 09-2186. United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit. August 4, 2011.
Before Lynch, Chief Judge, Torruella, Boudin, Lipez, Howard and Thompson, Circuit Judges.
ORDER OF COURT
Plaintiffs-appellants Gregorio Igartúa and other individual citizen-residents of Puerto Rico have filed a petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc. Intervenor Commonwealth of Puerto Rico has filed a petition for rehearing en banc. Pursuant to First Circuit Internal Operating Procedure X(C), the Commonwealth's petition for rehearing en banc has also been treated as a petition for rehearing before the original panel. The petitions for rehearing having been denied by the panel of judges who decided the case, and the petitions for rehearing en banc having been submitted to the active judges of this court and a majority of the judges not having voted that the case be heard en banc, it is ordered that the petitions for rehearing and rehearing en banc be denied.
LYNCH, Chief Judge, BOUDIN and HOWARD, Circuit Judges.
The issues at the heart of this case have already received en banc review, and are not entitled to new review. Six years ago, this court did grant en banc review in Igartúa-De La Rosa v. United States, 417 F.3d 145 (1st Cir. 2005) (en banc) (Igartúa III), because of the importance of the issues, and that en banc decision controls the disposition of this petition for en banc review.
Igartúa III held, after full consideration of the issue, that the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) is not a self-executing treaty and thus is not binding as a matter of domestic law. Id. at 150. In light of this holding in Igartúa III, the antecedent question of whether the Constitution permits Congress to utilize the treaty power to extend voting rights to U.S. citizen-residents of Puerto Rico is not properly presented.
Our en banc decision in Igartúa III controls this case, despite the views of our dissenting colleagues, who wish to reopen settled issues which have already been given en banc treatment. Not only has no intervening authority called the ICCPR holding of Igartúa III into doubt, but the Supreme Court has expressly ratified this aspect of the en banc decision. See Medellín v. Texas, 128 S.Ct. 1346, 1356 (2008) (quoting Igartúa III, 417 F.3d at 150).
We believe Igartúa III was correctly decided and no majority of this court can, in consequence, exist for any outcome other than affirmance of dismissal of the case. Fed. R. App. P. 35(a), which disfavors grants of petitions for en banc review, does not allow continual en banc reviews to re-examine already settled issues.