macmeekin.com 

Dan MacMeekin         Attorney at Law        Washington, DC, USA

Library … Articles …

Analysis of the Fourteen Proposed Amendments 

to the FSM Constitution (as amended) 

by John R. Haglelgam

^{Return to the article outline}

[Limiting Adjudication of Land Cases by National Courts]

[55.7% of the voters in the August 27, 2002, referendum voted in favor of this amendment.  A 75% affirmative vote was required to pass the amendment, so the amendment failed.]

3. Committee Proposal No. 01-5:

This proposed amendment would amend Section 6 (a) and (b) of Article XI. It proposes to take away national court jurisdiction to adjudicate cases involving ownership of water and land. In this proposal, the ownership of water refers to the traditional claims of ownership on the reefs inside the territorial sea. With respect to cases involving land, this proposal will prevent the national courts, including the trial division of the FSM Supreme Court, from asserting jurisdiction through diversity of citizenship, dispute between a state and a citizen of another state, or through some other means available in the FSM Constitution or American jurisprudence.

ANALYSIS:

This proposed amendment attempts to stop the intrusion of the FSM Supreme Court into adjudicating land cases. In spite of the fact that the current provision of the FSM Constitution gives the state courts jurisdiction in cases involving land, the Supreme Court has, in recent cases, claimed jurisdiction through other means such as diversity of citizenship. These cases have been controversial and are seen by the state courts as unjustifiable intrusion in their jurisdiction and may be in violation of the spirit of the FSM Constitution. Perhaps what prompted litigants to seek redress in the Supreme Court is the fear (justified or imagined) that the state courts would not be able to render impartial justice.

In a rare situation where jurisdiction of the national courts overlap with that of the state courts in land cases, the FSM Congress will prescribe by statute the proper court.

©  John R. Haglelgam, March 4, 2002

^{Top of page}

^{Return to the article outline}

 

  Dan MacMeekin  2000 -2008            Disclaimer  - the fine print                February  24, 2008