[ 回首頁 ]   [  台灣地位真相的堅持-林志昇(影音)  ]  [ 論壇討論區 ]  [  論述文章 ]


鄭重聲明 :



何瑞元會寄此mail給蝶衣, 是為了釐清林何論述不等於建州派.
(文中已很詳細說明) ,再者,有人將林何論述與建州派混為一談,
更借題發揮挑撥離間臺灣派的意識與情緒,攻訐林何二人之論述,
而且 更有建州派的私下透過美國臺灣鄉親,要林志昇支持建州派.
為他們背書. 但是被林志昇所拒.當然 也讓他們幾人惱羞成怒了.
在網上更是無恥盜用林何論述.玩弄移花接木手法招搖撞騙.

年九月建州派數人舉著林何團隊之旗幟(美台旗)到AIT 獻花,

魚目混珠及混淆視聽之行為昭然若揭。

各位想想也知道, 若有人開了一張你百年後才可能兌現的支票
你如何確定那支票是否會跳票??

何瑞元將Can Taiwan become a “state” of the USA?
The answer is: “Not within our lifetimes.”
原委詳細
分析, 告訴臺灣人民真正屬於台灣的路與未來. 請大家明辨
千萬不要上當受騙.

========================================================


Mr. 何瑞元寄給蝶衣的 e-mail :


Can Taiwan become a “state” of the USA?
The answer is: “Not within our lifetimes.”

1. There is no basis in US Constitutional law for any overseas country or area to “apply” for statehood in the USA. The only two areas outside of the contiguous 48 states which have achieved statehood are Alaska and Hawaii, and both have very special relationships with the US government. Those relationships were in place before the Spanish American War of 1898. After the Spanish American War of 1898, the US Supreme Court “changed the rules” and introduced the doctrine of “unincorporated territory.”

2. Some people say that Taiwan could have a referendum to let the people decide if they want to join the USA as a “state.” This is impossible. There is no basis in the US Constitution for such a referendum by any overseas area which at present has no clearly defined relationship in the US federal government.

3. Of course, Puerto Rico can have a referendum on “statehood,” because Puerto Rico is already recognized as an overseas territory of the USA. However, since Puerto Rico became an overseas territory of the USA in 1899, all of the referendums on “statehood” have failed. Why? Well, for one simple reason, as an independent country, Puerto Rico will be faced with the problems of national defense, plus asylum and refugee matters, so of course that means that TAXES will have to go up considerably.

4. So far, no one in the “51st State Movement” has shown any clear step-by-step formula whereby Taiwan could achieve “statehood” within our lifetimes. (As mentioned above, there is no constitutional basis for a referendum to decide this issue.)

5. Additionally, what we have seen in the past is that an “unincorporated territory” such as Puerto Rico or Guam, would first need to become an “incorporated territory” before it could become a state. That is also a complicated legal process, which would require Congressional action. IN SUMMARY, so far, Puerto Rico has been an “unincorporated territory” over 100 years, but it still has not achieved “statehood.” The same is true for Guam.

6. By contrast, based on the Senate-ratified San Francisco Peace Treaty, Taiwan’s true international legal position is “unincorporated territory under the United States Military Government.” Taiwan is “territory acquired under the principle of conquest.” The disposition of Taiwan territory must then be conducted according to the laws of war. Simply put, this will mean “military occupation” followed by disposition of the territory in the peace treaty.

7. From the viewpoint of the laws of war, in the San Francisco Peace Treaty (SFPT) the territory of Taiwan has been ceded to the “principal occupying power” as an interim status condition. Thus, Taiwan falls under the territorial clause of the US Constitution (Article 4, Sec. 3, cl. 2). In other words, the US government can claim jurisdiction over Taiwan, and there is nothing that any other country can do about it.

8. Many Taiwanese persons now support the idea of recognizing Taiwan’s true status under the SFPT. Is this equivalent to making an application to join the United States as an overseas territory? No, this is just pointing out the true legal facts of the matter! The reality of the situation is that Taiwan is already an overseas territory of the USA. The Republic of China is a government in exile.

9. As of Oct. 24, 2006, Dr. Roger Lin has already filed a legal suit in the US District Court in Washington, D.C. to clarify the “civil rights” of native Taiwanese persons under this EXISTING LEGAL STRUCTURE. Please read our legal Complaint to see the exact details of what Taiwan’s true status is, and what sort of “civil rights” the Taiwanese are entitled to under US laws, including the US Constitution.


For more English language information on Taiwan’s true status, see -


10. We congratulate Dr. Roger Lin for the aggressive legal action he is taking in regard to clarifying the exact relationship between Taiwan and the USA. We are confident that such legal actions will lead to a brighter future for all Taiwanese people. We encourage all overseas Taiwanese groups in the USA to strongly support this agenda.

_________________


(轉貼)

翻譯版:

作者 :we are all one
資料來源: http://w1.gati.org.tw/chat/index.php3?read+1162215633


何瑞元博士文章-
帶給所有台灣人民一個較為光明有希望的未來

題目:
Can Taiwan become a “state” of the USA?
The answer is: “Not within our lifetimes.”

台灣能變成美國的一州嗎?
答案是:「在我們一生當中是不可能。」

何瑞元博士將
Can Taiwan become a “state” of the USA?
The answer is: “Not within our lifetimes.”

原委詳細分析,
告訴臺灣人民真正屬於台灣的路與未來,
請大家明辨。

====================================


翻譯: WE ARE ALL ONE

1. There is no basis in US Constitutional law for any overseas country or area to “apply” for statehood in the USA.


1. 對任何一美國海外國家和或地區要申請成為美國一州,美國憲法並沒有任何適用條文規定。

The only two areas outside of the contiguous 48 states which have achieved statehood are Alaska and Hawaii, and both have very special relationships with the US government.

美國本土相鄰48州以外達成建州者,唯有的二個地區為阿拉斯加與夏威夷:而且此二個地區與美國政府具有非常特殊的關係。

Those relationships were in place before the Spanish American War of 1898. After the Spanish American War of 1898, the US Supreme Court “changed the rules” and introduced the doctrine of “unincorporated territory.”

然此非常特殊的關係卻早已於1898年的美西戰爭前即已存在。在1898年美西戰爭後,美國最高法院經 “修改規定” 後引用 “未合併領土”之原理。


2. Some people say that Taiwan could have a referendum to let the people decide if they want to join the USA as a “state.” This is impossible.

2. 有些人主張說台灣能夠經由公民投票以讓台灣人民決定是否願意加入成為美國一州。但,這是不可能的。

There is no basis in the US Constitution for such a referendum by any overseas area which at present has no clearly defined relationship in the US federal government.

美國憲法並沒有任何適用條文規定,能夠允許經由公民投票,以讓目前與美國聯邦政府並無明確界定關係之任何美國本土以外地區之人民決定是否願意加入成為美國一州。


3. Of course, Puerto Rico can have a referendum on “statehood,” because Puerto Rico is already recognized as an overseas territory of the USA.

3. 當然,波多黎各能夠允許其經由公民投票加入成為美國一州;因為波多黎各已經被承認為美國海外的屬地。

However, since Puerto Rico became an overseas territory of the USA in 1899, all of the referendums on “statehood” have failed.

但是,自1899年波多黎各變成美國海外屬地以來,所有進行加入成為美國一州之公民投票均是失敗結果。

Why? Well, for one simple reason, as an independent country, Puerto Rico will be faced with the problems of national defense, plus asylum and refugee matters, so of course that means that TAXES will have to go up considerably.

為什麼均是失敗結果?是這樣子的,僅為一個簡單的理由:若是作為一個獨立國家,波多黎各將面對國家防衛之問題、以及加上政治庇護與難民之事務;當然作為一個獨立國家,因此亦代表納稅金也會相當的增加。


4. So far, no one in the “51st State Movement” has shown any clear step-by-step formula whereby Taiwan could achieve “statehood” within our lifetimes. (As mentioned above, there is no constitutional basis for a referendum to decide this issue.)

4. 到目前為止,“第五十一州建州運動”之推動組織者尚無認任何一位已經明確清楚提出,如何進行在我們有生命當中能使台灣成為“美國一州”一步一步之程序步驟。(如上所述,美國憲法並沒有任何適用條文規定,能夠允許經由公民投票,以讓目前與美國聯邦政府並無明確界定關係之任何美國本土以外地區之人民決定是否願意加入成為美國一州之規定。)


5. Additionally, what we have seen in the past is that an “unincorporated territory” such as Puerto Rico or Guam, would first need to become an “incorporated territory” before it could become a state.

5. 除此之外,過去歷史我們所已看到的是:凡屬為“未合併領土”地位者(諸如像波多黎各或關島等屬之),在其等能夠變成美國一州的地位之前,首先就需要先能經過變成“已合併領土”之地位後才有可能。

That is also a complicated legal process, which would require Congressional action.

此欲變成“已合併領土”之地位的進行,也是一連串複雜耗時之法律程序,此法律程序將需要美國國會的立法行動。

IN SUMMARY, so far, Puerto Rico has been an “unincorporated territory” over 100 years, but it still has not achieved “statehood.” The same is true for Guam.

總計耗時之久,到目前為止,波多黎各成為一美國海外“未合併領土”地位者計已有100年之久,仍然尚未能夠完成為“美國一州”的地位也。而關島亦屬同一情況然者。


6. By contrast, based on the Senate-ratified San Francisco Peace Treaty, Taiwan’s true international legal position is “unincorporated territory under the United States Military Government.”

6.相對的,依據經由美國參議院批准之舊金山和平條約之條款規定,台灣真正的國際法理地位現況為“美國軍事政府佔領下之美國海外未合併領土”。


Taiwan is “territory acquired under the principle of conquest.” The disposition of Taiwan territory must then be conducted according to the laws of war.

台灣是美國依“戰爭征服之國際戰爭法法理根源依據下之美國海外領土”。 因此,美國海外領土台灣屬地其地位之處置必須依據國際戰爭法法理來執行。

Simply put, this will mean “military occupation” followed by disposition of the territory in the peace treaty.

簡單的說,此國際戰爭法法理就是:軍事佔領後、依簽署之和平條約條款進行之所佔領屬地領土之處分。


7. From the viewpoint of the laws of war, in the San Francisco Peace Treaty (SFPT) the territory of Taiwan has been ceded to the “principal occupying power” as an interim status condition.

7.以國際戰爭法法理之觀點而論,在經由美國參議院批准之舊金山和平條約(SFPT)中條款之規定:台灣領土控制權已經讓渡割據給“主要佔領權(美國)”作為暫時之狀態情況。

Thus, Taiwan falls under the territorial clause of the US Constitution (Article 4, Sec. 3, cl. 2).

因此,台灣地位情況係受由美國憲法中之‘尚未認可為州之區域領土’之條款(Article 4, Sec. 3, cl. 2).所規範界定。

In other words, the US government can claim jurisdiction over Taiwan, and there is nothing that any other country can do about it.

換句話說,美國政府有權宣告對台灣的管轄權;同時,也沒有任何其他國家有辦法能夠左右得了美國對台灣的管轄權之主張。


8. Many Taiwanese persons now support the idea of recognizing Taiwan’s true status under the SFPT.

8.許多台灣人民現在支持在舊金山和平條約(SFPT) 規定下承認此台灣真正的國際法理地位現況(美國軍事政府佔領下之美國海外未合併領土)此法理真相之認定。

Is this equivalent to making an application to join the United States as an overseas territory? No, this is just pointing out the true legal facts of the matter!

此法理真相認定之意義是否即等於是:進行欲加入美國成為其一海外領土之申請呢?不,此法理真相認定之意義是要指出此台灣真正的國際法理地位現況真相之事實。

The reality of the situation is that Taiwan is already an overseas territory of the USA. The Republic of China is a government in exile.

此真正情況之現實就是:台灣真正的國際法理地位現況真相為台灣已經是為美國軍事政府佔領下之美國海外未合併領土。


9. As of Oct. 24, 2006, Dr. Roger Lin has already filed a legal suit in the US District Court in Washington, D.C. to clarify the “civil rights” of native Taiwanese persons under this EXISTING LEGAL STRUCTURE.

9.於2006年10月24日,林志昇博士(Dr. Roger Lin)已經向位於美國首都華盛頓特區之美國聯邦地方法院提出申請對美國政府強制令之訴訟,根據『現有之法律架構』,要求澄清台灣當地人民之同享有『美國民權』之權利訴求。

Please read our legal Complaint to see the exact details of what Taiwan’s true status is, and what sort of “civil rights” the Taiwanese are entitled to under US laws, including the US Constitution.


敬請參閱我們所提告之法律訴狀以明白甚麼是『台灣真正的國際法理地位』現況真相之細節;以及在美國包括憲法等相關法律規定下,台灣當地人民應與美國人同享有那些『美國民權』之權利內容為何?
 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Can Taiwan become a “state” of the USA?
The answer is: “Not within our lifetimes.”


『The answer is: “Not within our lifetimes.”』 這句話已經夠明白了吧?

林志昇與何瑞元有良知的人 , 明知不可能的事一定會誠實坦白,詳細說明讓台灣人民瞭解 , 更不會替 "百年支票" 背書。

當然, 網路上有人敢說他的"百年支票" 沒問題 , 而有人會去相信的話 , 也沒辦法 , 林何團隊已經盡到說明事理與法理之責任 , 選擇權在於每個人的智慧判斷。

終結" 中華民國流亡政府" 佔領台灣, 讓台灣人民承受62年的苦難早日結束, 才是當務之急。

再者 , 沒有終結 "中華民國流亡政府" 之局勢下 , 台灣可能舉辦一場決定台灣未來前途的公投嗎 ?

若是可能 (微乎其微 ,可能性為零) , 在"中華民國流亡政府" 之體制沒有解散之情況下 , 毫無法理依據之下, 決定台灣未來前途的公投能被美國與國際社會認同嗎?

所以 , 這塊"中華民國流亡政府" 障礙物沒有消除之下 , 建州派所謂全民公投成為美國一州, 是絕不可能付之行動 , 更何況那只是畫在網路上的大餅。

相信稍有智慧的人, 用簡單邏輯頭腦思考一下 , 就會明白哪一條路才是台灣人民該走的正路。

 

蝶衣

Oct. 8, 2007