Comments to American Samoa Constitutional Convention Review Committee

Talofa,

In 2022, the people in American Samoa and their leaders are focused on preserving balance between our proven allegiance as a people to the nation we love, and the historical achievement of autonomy that defines a federal-territorial relationship unlike any other under the American flag.

Under the laws of the U.S. and American Samoa, we affirm our patriotic bonds to the U.S. by also being vigilant in protection of our local way of life. That serves both local and U.S. national interests that includes self-determination for indigenous peoples.

Those who understand our unique status know some of our laws, customs, and traditions are different from other territories and the states. For example, the way we select our senators and our land tenure system are unique to us.

As the Committee considers the future of our people and preservation of our cultural rights and freedom, there is an awareness of legal cases in federal courts and debates in the federal Congress about changes in how the U.S. Constitution and federal laws apply in American Samoa.

Some who don't understand our history mistakenly seek changes in law or policy that would make American Samoa more like states and other territories without local self-determination. That would abuse rather than justly exercise the supremacy of federal law.

Right now, in all unincorporated territories, there is a high level of support for "equity" under federal social safety net laws. We support equity for all territories but understand that full legal and political equality for those with U.S. nationality or citizenship come only with statehood, and territories are not states.

So, instead of seeking exactly the same state-like treatment as other territories under their organic acts and local constitutions, on a case-by-case basis, American Samoa must seek to preserve the balance of federal laws and programs that are consistent with our one-of-a-kind autonomy and self-determination rights.

This isn't to say we shouldn't have discussions, referendums, and proposals for legislation, always strengthened by the degree of consensus we forge as a people.

Indeed, it would be silence and inaction when needed to preserve our way of life that may put our freedom and historical autonomy at risk.

That is clear from the misguided efforts of a few to repeat the real mistake of the Insular Cases, which was to have federal judges decide the status of territorial peoples instead of action by Congress that enables and honors self-determination.

Thus, we need to ask ourselves if managing federal relations in a legal and political framework that includes the exercise of federal authority by the Secretary of the Interior under Congressional oversight allows change that is based on self-determination and a respectful understanding of our history.

We have less to fear about seeking change that affirms our right of self-determination than the risk of leaving it to lawyers and judges and federal officials who are unduly influenced by special interests to debate and decide our future.

So, let's be honest and brave but smart as we forge a consensus about the three options that seem to be under active consideration for review by the Committee.

That is, 1) Stay with the existing federal law on constitutional revision, 2) Seek repeal removing the requirement of Congressional action from the local constitution revision process, or, 3) Seek amendment of existing law to enable revision of the local constitution by 2/3's majority vote in a referendum (consistent with other territories with constitutions).

Each option has merits and also raises questions. We have a stable relationship under the current process, and sometimes the best option is not to change for change's sake. But when others are proposing and seeking change in our name we need to either seek changes we want or prevent change we oppose.

Ending the preemptive role of Congress and or the Interior Secretary before local action to amend the local Constitution does not end federal power to modify local law incompatible with federal law. And, speaking from experience, Congress tends to be more willing to limit authorities of the executive branch, in this case Interior, than it is to give up authority it wants to retain.

But if we present our case well Congress may recognize its greatest authority is to promote self-determination, especially when it retains power of oversight and regulation of territorial affairs. So all options truly are on the table.

When my father, Gov. Uifa'atali Peter Coleman, was first appointed Samoan governor -- one of the things he did was lead the forming of the first constitution in 1960, so I look forward to continuing that process with all of you in the future.

Source