Thanks to both. But I'll still refer you to Justice John Harlan's dissenting opinion in post number 1. How do we fix that?
That's a valid and important question. Before I answer I'll provide a qualifier. I am neither a lawyer nor a constitutional scholar. I am just an American like you who reads and thinks. The "thinking" on my part is also questionable ;-)
Anyhow, the question posed was; "How do we fix that (Justice Harlan's opinion)?" My narrow response is; "We don't because there is nothing to fix." Accepting all you have quoted and represented of Justice Harlan as accurate and complete, his was a minority opinion. It wasn't a judgment. It has no force of law. It is merely the opinion of a learned jurist.
Now I also have an opinion. Though I am not nearly so learned nor respected, my opinion is based on reading, thinking, and experiencing life. My opinion is this; "Sovereign nations by the very nature of their existence will acquire and govern territories and possessions. I further disagree with Justice Harlan that this; "...is wholly inconsistent with the spirit and genius, as well as with the words, of the Constitution." I quote the second paragraph of Section 3 - New States of Article IV - The States of the United States Constitution:
"The 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; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State."
Not only does this paragraph vest Congress with sole power to dispose of and make rules and regulations over Territory and Property belonging to the United States, but it is placed in the section of the Constitution dealing with New States (which is also the sole power of Congress). Therefore, Justice Harlan's dissenting opinion was wrong on point of fact; the Constitution does specifically state with words the power of Congress to govern territory and property.
Further, I disagree with and challenge Justice Harlan's point of opinion that; "The idea that this country may acquire territories anywhere upon the earth, by conquest or treaty, and hold them as mere colonies or provinces...is wholly inconsistent with the spirit and genius...of the Constitution." On the contrary, it was provided for in the Constitution by the very article I cited above. The founding fathers well understood that territory is only gained through treaty (by deed, i.e. District of Columbia, Louisiana Purchase) or conquest. That is so basic that they felt no need to spell it out. But they did spell out that territory/property was to be exclusively governed by Congress.
So, I disagree with Justice Harlan's opinion. My disagreement is based on Constitutional fact. Justice Harlan's opinion is based on a false premise. That's how I see it.
But it is also how I narrowly see it. I agree with Justice Harlan's underlying sentiment of freedom and self-determination. These are basic to the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Both are available to the United States Citizens of Puerto Rico.
By virtue of being a Commonwealth, Puerto Rico is a part of the United States. By not being a State, Puerto Rico residents are citizens of the United States but not of one of the Several States of the United States e.g. I am a citizen of both South Dakota and the United States. This status provides Puerto Rico residents an opportunity I do not have, the ability to become a sovereign state not part of the United States. It also gives them the opportunity to become one of the Several States that are part of the United States.
I say to the United States citizens of Puerto Rico; "Seize the opportunity. Petition Congress to become either a State or a Sovereign Nation!" It is time.
Good luck with wading through my response. Hope it didn't put you to sleep!