<P> At the root of this problem is the unacceptable role of the courts . Their complicity in the perpetuation of this outcome is unconscionable . As in the case of racial segregation, see Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 557 (1896) (overruled by Brown v. Bd. of Educ., 347 U.S. 482 (1954)), it is the courts that are responsible for the creation of this inequality . Furthermore, it is the courts that have clothed this noxious condition in a mantle of legal respectability . </P> <P> But perhaps even more egregious is the fact that it is this judiciary that has mechanically parroted the outdated and retrograde underpinnings on which this invented inferiority is perpetuated . This result is now reached without so much as a minimum of analysis or consideration for the passage of time and the changed conditions, both legal and societal . These changed conditions have long undermined the foundations of these judge - made rules, which were established in a by - gone era in consonance with the distorted views of that epoch . Although the unequal treatment of persons because of the color of their skin or other irrelevant reasons, was then the modus operandi of governments, and an accepted practice of societies in general, the continued enforcement of these rules by the courts is today an outdated anachronism, to say the least . Such actions, particularly by courts of the United States, only serve to tarnish our judicial system as the standard - bearer of the best values to which our Nation aspires . Allowing these antiquated rules to remain in place, long after the unequal treatment of American citizens has become constitutionally, morally and culturally unacceptable in the rest of our Nation, see Brown v. Bd. of Educ., 347 U.S. 483, is an intolerable state of affairs which cannot be excused by hiding behind any theory of law . </P> <P> In 1961, just a few years after the United Nations first ratified the ICCPR, the Twenty - third Amendment to the United States Constitution was passed, allowing United States citizens residing in the District of Columbia to vote for the executive offices . As of 2009 a bill was pending in Congress that would treat the District of Columbia as "a congressional district for purposes of representation in the House of Representatives", and permit United States citizens residing in the capitol to vote for members of the House of Representatives . However, the United States has not taken similar steps with regard to the five million United States citizens who reside in the U.S. territories, of which close to four million are residents of Puerto Rico . In an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part in a judicial decision, Puerto Rican jurist Juan R. Torruella wrote that this inaction is in clear violation of the United States' obligations under the ICCPR . </P>

Can a citizen of puerto rico be president