2aHawaii
General Topics => Political Discussion => Topic started by: ren on March 29, 2018, 07:29:53 PM
-
http://www.kitv.com/story/37842636/hawaii-high-schools-stage-walkout-protesting-placement-of-state-flag (http://www.kitv.com/story/37842636/hawaii-high-schools-stage-walkout-protesting-placement-of-state-flag)
-
Watching the national news........
Don't be surprised if BLM pushes for a national walkout too.
-
Isn't this an ongoing protest? I remember seeing these stories about activists showing up at schools and public buildings to take down the US flag and run up the Hawaii flag alone.
2014 - https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=6128
-
mad squabbles
-
mad squabbles
They need to get the shit slapped outta their asses. Not only because of the flag but they need to get back into the school and learn something...... :wtf:
-
They need to get the shit slapped outta their asses. Not only because of the flag but they need to get back into the school and learn something...... :wtf:
Many of Hawaii's students are learning something.
The actions of students referenced in the article are a direct result of the education they received in regards to Hawaiian history and the illegal annexation of Hawaii by the US, through which the article fails to mention.
-
Many of Hawaii's students are learning something.
The actions of students referenced in the article are a direct result of the education they received in regards to Hawaiian history and the illegal annexation of Hawaii by the US, through which the article fails to mention.
Mad squabbles. You should exercise your US given 2A rights to take back your nation. Then give back your 2A rights under your new monarchy.
-
Mad squabbles. You should exercise your US given 2A rights to take back your nation. Then give back your 2A rights under your new monarchy.
How do you know that citizens of the Hawaiian Kingdom did not own firearms?
-
How do you know that citizens of the Hawaiian Kingdom did not own firearms?
Ulu Maikas were firearms?
-
Ulu Maikas were firearms?
Thurston and the so-called Committee of Safety, almost all who were officially Hawaiian nationals, used their legally owned firearms permitted by the Kingdom to overthrow Hawaii's last Queen.
Strangely enough, after their illegal insurrection and goal of immediate annexation by the US was rightfully denied by President Cleveland, who officially saw Thurston and his group as traitors/terrorists, it was their de facto unintended Republic of Hawaii that began outlawing firearms to its citizens, who were the majority, Native Hawaiians. :wtf:
-
Thurston and the so-called Committee of Safety, almost all who were officially Hawaiian nationals, used their legally owned firearms permitted by the Kingdom to overthrow Hawaii's last Queen.
Strangely enough, after their illegal insurrection and goal of immediate annexation by the US was rightfully denied by President Cleveland, who officially saw Thurston and his group as traitors/terrorists, it was their de facto unintended Republic of Hawaii that began outlawing firearms to its citizens, who were the majority, Native Hawaiians. :wtf:
ah so
-
Many of Hawaii's students are learning something.
The actions of students referenced in the article are a direct result of the education they received in regards to Hawaiian history and the illegal annexation of Hawaii by the US, through which the article fails to mention.
-
https://tenor.com/view/bs-bullshit-gif-10521479
No, it is not bullshit.
In fact, the truth of the illegal overthrow, annexation, and current occupation of Hawaii has just become standard teaching in all public schools in the US.
Please see for details: https://hawaiiankingdom.org/blog/american-national-teachers-union-recognizes-the-illegal-occupation-of-the-hawaiian-kingdom/
-
No, it is not bullshit.
In fact, the truth of the illegal overthrow, annexation, and current occupation of Hawaii has just become standard teaching in all public schools in the US.
Please see for details: https://hawaiiankingdom.org/blog/american-national-teachers-union-recognizes-the-illegal-occupation-of-the-hawaiian-kingdom/
I call Bullshit on that comment.
Read the link you posted. it says:
“The NEA will publish an article that documents the illegal overthrow of the Hawaiian Monarchy in 1893,
the prolonged occupation of the United States in the Hawaiian Kingdom and the harmful effects that this
occupation has had on the Hawaiian people and resources of the land.”
Publishing an article is not the same as making the information a part of mainland curriculum "in all public schools in the U.S."
-
Clinton apologized. The overthrow was illegal. I have no idea why that fact is so difficult to swallow. As Kuleana pointed out it actually helps support the case of why 2a is important.
-
I call Bullshit on that comment.
Read the link you posted. it says:
Publishing an article is not the same as making the information a part of mainland curriculum "in all public schools in the U.S."
The fact that they will publish an article definitely infers that its contents will eventually be part of the curriculum when discussing the history of Hawaii to students among the teachers belonging to that union.
-
The fact that they will publish an article definitely infers that its contents will eventually be part of the curriculum when discussing the history of Hawaii to students among the teachers belonging to that union.
"Infers"
"eventually be part of curriculum"
That's not what you said.
If you can't admit when you're wrong about something you posted, then nothing you post is worth our time. We see enough BS from the Far-Left Liberals who refuse to accept facts. You should try to be better than them.
-
Clinton apologized. The overthrow was illegal. I have no idea why that fact is so difficult to swallow. As Kuleana pointed out it actually helps support the case of why 2a is important.
Exactly.
Had the so-called Republic of Hawaii not banned the ownership of firearms, Native Hawaiians would have been able to take back their nation from those greedy insurgents that later became what we know today as the "Big Five", which would later be universally despised by Native Hawaiians and the many Asian immigrants that settled to Hawaii.
-
"Infers"
"eventually be part of curriculum"
That's not what you said.
If you can't admit when you're wrong about something you posted, then nothing you post is worth our time. We see enough BS from the Far-Left Liberals who refuse to accept facts. You should try to be better than them.
If it makes you happy, I stand corrected.
-
Clinton apologized. The overthrow was illegal. I have no idea why that fact is so difficult to swallow. As Kuleana pointed out it actually helps support the case of why 2a is important.
LOL! Clinton is a proven liar who perjured himself under oath and is only the second President in US history to be impeached and tried in the Senate.
But, you go ahead and hang your hat on what Clinton told you. :rofl:
-
If it makes you happy, I stand corrected.
Not an apology, but I guess an admission is better than expected. :thumbsup:
-
Not an apology, but I guess an admission is better than expected. :thumbsup:
If there is anyone who should be giving apologies, the people who owe a million of them is Bill and Hillary Clinton.
-
If there is anyone who should be giving apologies, the people who owe a million of them is Bill and Hillary Clinton.
Bill apologized on TV for lying once. That was after Monica produced his DNA.
The Clinton M.O. is: Lie, then lie about lying. Wait to see if that scandal gets covered up by the media as a non-issue.
Never admit to lying unless there's forensic evidence. Then apologize, ask for forgiveness, and brush it off as a vast Right-wing conspiracy. :rofl:
-
Clinton apologized.
Clinton didn't have a choice but to apologize. Monica didn't swallow. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
-
Mods please close this thread. My apologies for starting it.
-
Mods please close this thread. My apologies for starting it.
Why do you want to close this thread?
Your thread has done a terrific service for the members of this forum by providing a great amount of legal historical information in regards to the illegal overthrow, annexation, and occupation of Hawaii as well as how the American descendant Hawaiian nationals banned gun ownership after they created the Republic of Hawaii, in order to make possible the imperial take over of Hawaii by the US in 1898.
This thread has reaffirmed once again the importance of the Second Amendment, the right of the people to bear arms.
Mahalo Ren! :shaka:
-
No, it is not bullshit.
In fact, the truth of the illegal overthrow, annexation, and current occupation of Hawaii has just become standard teaching in all public schools in the US.
Please see for details: https://hawaiiankingdom.org/blog/american-national-teachers-union-recognizes-the-illegal-occupation-of-the-hawaiian-kingdom/
You support "that union" and it's goals and policies? The NEA.
That's the union that hosted the "March for Our Lies" last weekend in D.C. at their massive lobbying headquarters with hot chocolate after their "#enough". You know, where spokesperson Tarr said, "When they give us that inch, that bump stock ban, we will take a mile. We are not here for bread crumbs. They [politicians] know that if there is no assault weapons ban passed, then we will vote them out. They know that if there is no tightening of the background checks, we will vote them out. They know that if there is no shrinking of magazine capacity, then we will vote them out."
Good to know who you are siding with ideologically. The NEA views everything through a very particular "bias", including the topic you reference them as being arbiters of.
For example, regarding Second Amendment issues, here's what the NEA official position is: "We believe assault weapons and high capacity magazines are weapons of war that belong only in the hands of our military and law enforcement officers. We believe in “amnesty days” to allow Americans to turn these types of weapons of war in to law enforcement –no questions asked."
http://www.nea.org/home/54092.htm
Maybe you should just turn yours in now to show your support for this "authoritative" organization.
Here are a couple more of their "articles" on the same topic:
http://www.nea.org/home/55527.htm
http://www.nea.org/home/72835.htm
-
You support "that union" and it's goals and policies? The NEA.
That's the union that hosted the "March for Our Lies" last weekend in D.C. at their massive lobbying headquarters with hot chocolate after their "#enough". You know, where spokesperson Tarr said, "When they give us that inch, that bump stock ban, we will take a mile. We are not here for bread crumbs. They [politicians] know that if there is no assault weapons ban passed, then we will vote them out. They know that if there is no tightening of the background checks, we will vote them out. They know that if there is no shrinking of magazine capacity, then we will vote them out."
Good to know who you are siding with ideologically. The NEA views everything through a very particular "bias", including the topic you reference them as being arbiters of.
For example, regarding Second Amendment issues, here's what the NEA official position is: "We believe assault weapons and high capacity magazines are weapons of war that belong only in the hands of our military and law enforcement officers. We believe in “amnesty days” to allow Americans to turn these types of weapons of war in to law enforcement –no questions asked."
http://www.nea.org/home/54092.htm
Maybe you should just turn yours in now to show your support for this "authoritative" organization.
Here are a couple more of their "articles" on the same topic:
http://www.nea.org/home/55527.htm
http://www.nea.org/home/72835.htm
My appreciation of the NEA in recognizing of the illegal overthrow, annexation, and continued occupation of Hawaii has nothing to do with their stance on 2nd Amendment issues, which I obviously disagree.
Just like a number of people on this forum, some like the NRA, HRA, and HDF for the major issues, but disagrees with them on others.
-
You support "that union" and it's goals and policies? The NEA.
I did not say I support that organization.
The NEA views everything through a very particular "bias", including the topic you reference them as being arbiters of.
I respect your views of the NEA, but your generalizations of the "bias lens" of the NEA and its positions on issues is still your opinion and not fact.
-
I respect your views of the NEA, but your generalizations of the "bias lens" of the NEA and its positions on issues is still your opinion and not fact.
The NEA topic press release "article" you reference is just their opinion and not fact.
-
The NEA "article" you reference is just their opinion and not fact.
The NEA is not issuing an opinion.
They will be publishing an article documenting historical evidence of the illegal overthrow, annexation, and continued occupation of Hawaii by the US as well as its long-term effects on Kanaka Maoli and the resources of the land.
-
The NEA is not issuing an opinion.
They will be publishing an article documenting historical evidence of the illegal overthrow, annexation, and continued occupation of Hawaii by the US as well as its long-term effects on Kanaka Maoli and the resources of the land.
Of course it's an opinion. How could it not be an opinion? The only way it could not be an opinion would be if the NEA published a giant compendium of every article and book ever written by every historian who ever wrote on the topic and included the disclaimer: "We have herein published every known recounting of events and point of view about these matters and take no stand or position whatsoever as to which is a more accurate accounting than any other."
You know very well that the language used is obviously an opinion, because there are people who deny that language is a valid, accurate and full representation of what actually transpired and thus have opposing opinions.
You really believe that something called "Hawaiian Kingdom Blog. Weblog of the acting government of the Hawaiian Kingdom presently operating within the occupied State of the Hawaiian Islands" is not rife with opinion? Please. Get real. You're entitled to your opinion, including your opinion that your opinion is not an opinion, but that doesn't make it so.Yeah, that's my opinion.
Here's the statement from the article you link to: “The NEA will publish an article that documents the illegal overthrow of the Hawaiian Monarchy in 1893, the prolonged occupation of the United States in the Hawaiian Kingdom and the harmful effects that this occupation has had on the Hawaiian people and resources of the land.” If you think that one statement alone isn't full of opinions you don't know the definition of "opinion".
When will this NEA article be published, and will all points of view be represented, or only those holding certain opinions?
-
Thurston and the so-called Committee of Safety, almost all who were officially Hawaiian nationals, used their legally owned firearms permitted by the Kingdom to overthrow Hawaii's last Queen.
Strangely enough, after their illegal insurrection and goal of immediate annexation by the US was rightfully denied by President Cleveland, who officially saw Thurston and his group as traitors/terrorists, it was their de facto unintended Republic of Hawaii that began outlawing firearms to its citizens, who were the majority, Native Hawaiians. :wtf:
After the Grover report, which clearly showed the committee of safety was wrong, however the president didn't want to use troops to reinstate the monarchy, the queen should have reclaimed her kingdom. They had no backing from the united states.
Instead the queen keep to her, we shall not use violence approach.
If the kingdom wanted it bad enough, they could have went against the queens wishes.
They also could have accomplished this without firearms.
It was only a committee and some of their friends
Then the queen could have reclaimed her throne
But the queen didn't
-
Mad squabbles. You should exercise your US given 2A rights to take back your nation. Then give back your 2A rights under your new monarchy.
-
How do you know that citizens of the Hawaiian Kingdom did not own firearms?
They don't own them now. All the Democrats they have elected disarmed them.
Or at the very least know where they live so someone else can come in and do it.
-
Many of Hawaii's students are learning something.
The actions of students referenced in the article are a direct result of the education they received in regards to Hawaiian history and the illegal annexation of Hawaii by the US, through which the article fails to mention.
Was being sarcastic.... seems like anything and everything that happens here in Hawaii you manage to turn it into sovereignty
Issues, etc etc. Even though I’m 25% Native American I’ve accepted what was done, rite or wrong. I guarantee native Americans suffered a lot more than native Hawaiians but you don’t see us whining about it every time time something is said.
About what you said about the Asians feeling the same way...
Well it was their choice to come here. No one dragged them here. Sure they were mistreated but what’s the sense in constantly bringing it up. We all came from some other place to where we are now. Maybe we should all retreat back to our ancestral lands which include Hawaiians. You may be native BUT your ancestors emigrated here just like everyone else. Maybe the U.S. should leave here and leave it the way it was found! One thing I’ll guarantee you is If the U.S. left, some other nation will step rite in and it’ll be a whole lot worse.
Like I was told a short time ago it’s manifest destiny and the reason for my B.S. semaphores....
Maybe you need some cheese with all that whine....
I
-
Maybe the U.S. should leave here and leave it the way it was found! One thing I’ll guarantee you is If the U.S. left, some other nation will step rite in and it’ll be a whole lot worse.
There are several post-colonial Pacific island nations that have spent the past few decades doing just fine. Are the evil super powers just being lazy?
-
Here's the statement from the article you link to: “The NEA will publish an article that documents the illegal overthrow of the Hawaiian Monarchy in 1893, the prolonged occupation of the United States in the Hawaiian Kingdom and the harmful effects that this occupation has had on the Hawaiian people and resources of the land.” If you think that one statement alone isn't full of opinions you don't know the definition of "opinion".
First of all, the overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom was illegal as well as the annexation of Hawaii by the US. Consequently, if the annexation of Hawaii was illegal, the current political control of Hawaii by the US is best described as an illegal occupation based on international law.
-
After the Grover report, which clearly showed the committee of safety was wrong, however the president didn't want to use troops to reinstate the monarchy, the queen should have reclaimed her kingdom. They had no backing from the united states.
Instead the queen keep to her, we shall not use violence approach.
If the kingdom wanted it bad enough, they could have went against the queens wishes.
They also could have accomplished this without firearms.
It was only a committee and some of their friends
Then the queen could have reclaimed her throne
But the queen didn't
I totally agree with your hypothetical speculation of events. However, the fact that the Queen did not take up arms against the insurgents in 1893, does not alter the facts that the overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom was illegal as its annnexation by the US.
There is no statute of limitations as to when an internationally recognized soveriegn nation can legally reclaim political authhority of its government and territory, after being illegally seized by a foreign power.
-
I totally agree with your hypothetical speculation of events. However, the fact that the Queen did not take up arms against the insurgents in 1893, does not alter the facts that the overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom was illegal as its annnexation by the US.
There is no statute of limitations as to when an internationally recognized soveriegn nation can legally reclaim political authhority of its government and territory, after being illegally seized by a foreign power.
If the queen, or anyone for that matter did anything it would have completely altered the fact.
Hawaii wouldn't have been annexed.
They sat back to front row seats and watched and let it happen
-
It's definitely something that is definitely debatable, but in the spirit of :stopjack: ....
Having anti-colonial protestors being punished for walking out versus the gun control protests getting enthusiastic approval and even direct support means there is a huge double standard at play here.
No matter how you feel about the legal issues surrounding the Kingdom let's not overlook the fact that these kids are throwing us a bone right now.
-
Again Mods close this stupid ass thread I created.
-
There are several post-colonial Pacific island nations that have spent the past few decades doing just fine. Are the evil super powers just being lazy?
No, they are not being lazy. There is not many evil super powers in the World today.
The only super power that has been invading soveriegn nations for nearly the last 30 years is the US. Hence, when Hawaii restores its rightful place as a internationally recognized neutral nation, as it was prior to the illegal overthrow, the only super power it needs to fear being invaded from is the US. :wtf:
-
Hearing the same rhetoric over the years. Be resilient. Look at other peoples atrocities. The Japanese. The Jews. The Chinese. See them crying? nope. They got back on their feet. Stop your whining and get to work on your "nation". Move on man. Stop doing stupid meaningless shit like crying over flag poles. That ain't doing jack shit. So you got a flag to fly at same level as the US? What has that gotten?
Again Mods close this stupid ass thread I created.
-
Again Mods close this stupid ass thread I created.
Mods please don't.
The knowledge, dissemination, and sharing of the illegal overthrow of Hawaii as well as the importance of people to defend their rights to bear arms against foreign and domestic enemies of the state is at an all time high because of this thread.
Hail Ren!
Long live the 2nd Amendment!
-
Mods please don't.
The knowledge, dissemination, and sharing of the illegal overthrow of Hawaii as well as the importance of people to defend their rights to bear arms against foreign and domestic enemies of the state is at an all time high because of this thread.
Hail Ren!
Long live the 2nd Amendment!
Yes. Long live the 2A but it has got nothing to do with this topic. My mistake. Same old shit again.
-
The Japanese. The Jews. The Chinese. See them crying? nope.
What are you talking about?
People in Japan has never forgotten the genocidal act by the US in the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945.
People in China has and never will forget the war atrocities committed by the Japanese army in Nanjing, China in 1938.
The Israeli's has and still complain and receive money from the US and other nations from the Holocaust in WWII.
-
2A is definitely a big part of this conversation and I have no idea why bringing it up provokes so much fear. Is the fact that people disagree about stuff really that terrifying?
-
What are you talking about?
People in Japan has never forgotten the genocidal act by the US in the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945.
People in China has and never will forget the war atrocities committed by the Japanese army in Nanjing, China in 1938.
The Israeli's has and still complain and receive money from the US and other nations from the Holocaust in WWII.
The Japanese started a war and we responded. Sure they suffered so did we at Pearl Harbor. My grandparents fled China from the Japanese Army.
My point is that these countries were resilient and grew. They didn't take 100 years to do it. You talk about the imperialist US? Look at China. They don't take land they go ahead and build it. See them crying over spilled milk? They easily overpower Japan.
So let's take a look at this Hawaiian flag flying at level or over the US. Symbolic sure. You think all these US citizens who live here will see that and vacate? How about the military?
-
My point is that these countries were resilient and grew. They didn't take 100 years to do it.
Yes, that is correct.
However, it is hard for the remnants of the citizenry of the Hawaiian nation to thrive, when it is being occupied by a foreign power whose political authority allows immigrants decade after decade to overload the carrying capacity of the land. Just like with the allowing of illegal immigrants into the US today. How can the US have any type of economic recovery when it has to absorb the costs of living of these unwelcomed migrants?
So let's take a look at this Hawaiian flag flying at level or over the US. Symbolic sure. You think all these US citizens who live here will see that and vacate?
No, I don't think so.
How about the military?
That will take time, but it is possible.
Let us not forget when the Philippines ousted US-backed human rights violator and dictator, Ferdinand Marcos, to Hawaii of all places, the Philippines closed the US military bases on its soil. It was only when the US was able to get another US-puppet elected President, when those bases were reopened.
Interestingly, the US could loose its military bases in the Philippines once again, since its current President Duterte is no American stooge.
-
Right now there's a snowball's chance in hell of any kind of U.S. withdrawal. If anything it's about to get a lot more crowded here when former allies start shutting down our bases.
What could change things are Black Swan events like a budget crisis or an epidemic or large-scale volcanic activity.
At that point we will have to confront the fact that this is a welfare state (more like a welfare gated community) and the current status quo makes us extremely vulnerable to systemic shocks. All these issues will take on much more meaning when the free money dries up and the rats scurry off the ship in search of greener pastures.
It's an inevitable consequence of building an economy on such a shaky foundation instead of paying attention to what the land can actually support.
-
Hearing the same rhetoric over the years. Be resilient. Look at other peoples atrocities. The Japanese. The Jews. The Chinese. See them crying? nope. They got back on their feet. Stop your whining and get to work on your "nation". Move on man. Stop doing stupid meaningless shit like crying over flag poles. That ain't doing jack shit. So you got a flag to fly at same level as the US? What has that gotten?
Again Mods close this stupid ass thread I created.
I agree, and seen the same when I was going to college.
Its illegal, etc, etc. Same talking points
And no one still won't do anything about it, just like when it first happened.
Put some stickers on your lifted truck and wear shirts taking about it but that's about as far as it will go.
Everyone talks about the "nation" but no one is willing to fight for it.
They waiting for international law, the united states, everyone else but themselves.
And that's what separates America, from other nations
-
(https://i.imgur.com/NFpEGnH.png?2)
-
Everyone talks about the "nation" but no one is willing to fight for it.
Native Hawaiians are fighting to restore that that was wrongfully taken away. Educating Americans on the continental US about the truth regarding the illegality of the overthrow, for example, is only in its infancy and is getting much more attention than ever before, as notably on this forum.
And that's what separates America, from other nations
This arrogant statement is an insult for all other nations that regained their freedom from tyranny throughout history.
-
(https://i.imgur.com/NFpEGnH.png?1)
Addressing the crimes committed by Americans who violate the US Constitution is every American's responsibility, especially for those who cherish the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
The illegal annexation of Hawaii was illegal because the action violated US Constitutional Law. According to official US documents, Hawaii was annexed through an act of Congress, "the Newlands Resolution", that was signed into law by President McKinley in 1898. However, this act was a violation of US Constitutional Law, whereby, Hawaii could only be legally annexed via treaty through the Department of State under then President McKinley, which failed in the US Senate due to the Kue petitions submitted by Native Hawaiians opposed to the annexation. Based on the Constitution, Congress only has jurisdiction to make laws governing the territory within its borders. Since Hawaii was an internationally recognized nation, Congress had no authority to draft bills to annex Hawaii. Consequently, the US has no legal basis to exert political authority over Hawaii and its de facto presence in Hawaii today is an illegal occupation, as defined in international law.
-
Addressing the crimes committed by Americans who violate the US Constitution is every American's responsibility, especially for those who cherish the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
The illegal annexation of Hawaii was illegal because the action violated US Constitutional Law. According to official US documents, Hawaii was annexed through an act of Congress, "the Newlands Resolution", that was signed into law by President McKinley in 1898. However, this act was a violation of US Constitutional Law, whereby, Hawaii could only be legally annexed via treaty through the Department of State under then President McKinley, which failed in the US Senate due to the Kue petitions submitted by Native Hawaiians opposed to the annexation. Based on the Constitution, Congress only has jurisdiction to make laws governing the territory within its borders. Since Hawaii was an internationally recognized nation, Congress had no authority to draft bills to annex Hawaii. Consequently, the US has no legal basis to exert political authority over Hawaii and its de facto presence in Hawaii today is an illegal occupation, as defined in international law.
If the annexation was illegal, then you have no case for violation of your Constitutional rights, because the state would not be a state. If the annexation was legal, then you can address those violations -- except the annexation would have to be legal to do that.
Catch 22.
:rofl:
-
If the annexation was illegal, then you have no case for violation of your Constitutional rights, because the state would not be a state. If the annexation was legal, then you can address those violations -- except the annexation would have to be legal to do that.
Catch 22.
:rofl:
Very funny.
However, the fact that America has military bases and its citizenry in Hawaii does not change the fact that the US has no legal basis to be in Hawaii.
-
Very funny.
However, the fact that America has military bases and its citizenry in Hawaii does not change the fact that the US has no legal basis to be in Hawaii.
We have bases and US citizens living and working in foreign countries all over the world. That point is immaterial to your argument.
-
Kuleana,
I am not going to take sides in this thread as I honestly cannot tell what the truth actually is. I have read numerous books and opinions on this subject over the years and from my point of view both sides has holes in their arguments. Due to this I do not want to discuss this though I will follow this thread if it continues.
However, I do have a statement and a question for you. After reading everything you wrote here I feel like you look at me as an "unwelcomed migrant". Is this how you feel about haole's like me? I have experienced plenty of racist comments and shout downs since I moved here 10 years ago. Every incident involves someone who feels the way you do and tells me to go back to the mainland. Actually yells at me to go back to the mainland. I was threatened once as well. >:( >:( >:(
I have always felt that we are all Americans here and are on the same side even though our opinions differ. Yet, after reading some of your words I get the feeling that you don't consider yourself an American. And that you would truly wish that we would just give back all of our land and homes to the monarchy move away. :( :( :(
I agree with Ren for probably a different reason. Mods, please close this thread.
-
Don’t worry. I’m sure you’re one of the good ones.
-
Quote from: punaperson on March 30, 2018, 09:30:25 AM
Here's the statement from the article you link to: “The NEA will publish an article that documents the illegal overthrow of the Hawaiian Monarchy in 1893, the prolonged occupation of the United States in the Hawaiian Kingdom and the harmful effects that this occupation has had on the Hawaiian people and resources of the land.” If you think that one statement alone isn't full of opinions you don't know the definition of "opinion".
First of all, the overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom was illegal as well as the annexation of Hawaii by the US. Consequently, if the annexation of Hawaii was illegal, the current political control of Hawaii by the US is best described as an illegal occupation based on international law.
I guess you really don't know the definition of "opinion".
If your claims and those you support are not "opinions" and just "facts", then how do you explain and/or label the statements that make claims opposite of yours? Are only those "opinions" or "wrong opinions" or "not facts" or what?
If everyone agrees that what you say are "facts" then how would you explain that nothing you claim is borne out in any current reality (e.g. "The Kingdom" would appear to be less than effectively operating as you imagine is should in what you claim are "facts"). So every jurist and lawyer and historian in the world agrees with your facts? Obviously not. And those that don't are the ones with mistaken "opinions". How very convenient for you.
-
:popcorn: :popcorn:
-
Kuleana,
I am not going to take sides in this thread as I honestly cannot tell what the truth actually is. I have read numerous books and opinions on this subject over the years and from my point of view both sides has holes in their arguments. Due to this I do not want to discuss this though I will follow this thread if it continues.
However, I do have a statement and a question for you. After reading everything you wrote here I feel like you look at me as an "unwelcomed migrant". Is this how you feel about haole's like me? I have experienced plenty of racist comments and shout downs since I moved here 10 years ago. Every incident involves someone who feels the way you do and tells me to go back to the mainland. Actually yells at me to go back to the mainland. I was threatened once as well. >:( >:( >:(
I have always felt that we are all Americans here and are on the same side even though our opinions differ. Yet, after reading some of your words I get the feeling that you don't consider yourself an American. And that you would truly wish that we would just give back all of our land and homes to the monarchy move away. :( :( :(
I agree with Ren for probably a different reason. Mods, please close this thread.
Inspector,
First of all, my comments about the historical and current legal status of Hawaii has nothing to do with me. The situation is what it is.
Having said that, this is where many who have read my posts regarding this issue on this forum misunderstand my view about the US and Americans. I was born in Hawaii and truly believed I was an American and that the US had the legal right over the political authority of Hawaii. However, since learning how America illegally annexed Hawaii according to its own laws, that changed everything. If you know anything about me and the my posts on this forum, I am a great admirer and proponent of the US Constitution and Bill of Rights. And when I found out that the US violated its own Constitutional law in acquiring Hawaii, I could not ignore the ramifications it has on Hawaii and effects on the lives of Hawaiians; hence, my views on the restoration of the Hawaiian government and etc.
Now to answer your question, I have nothing against Americans or any other ethnic groups living in Hawaii per se. I went to school and have friends with people born from the continental US and other nations for that matter growing up and attending public school here in Hawaii. I can see, however, how many Americans can feel when presented with the calls for America's ouster from Hawaii because of the illegal blah, blah, blah particulary from the last 30 years or so. If you here such arguments from a Hawaiian today, pay close attention to exactly what they are saying.
Currently, the Hawaiians who favor restoration of our nation are divided into two camps. On one side, you have the ignorant racists that believe Hawaii for ethnic Kanaka Maoli only based on moral, cultural, and/or religious foundations. They are the ones who perpetuate the racist behaviors you mentioned and are notoriously famous for " beat-up haole day", anti-TMT, and so on.
On the other side, you have those who call for the political restoration of Hawaii based on US Constitutional and international law grounds. Those on this side, you will find are not in love with the US, but are not overtly hateful to everything American or Americans. In fact, many are still in admiration of the US and its institutions. Moreover, this camp does not share or believe in the confiscation of privately owned land or keeping Hawaii as a Kanaka Maoli only club. Why would you get rid of your restored nation's tax base?
Hawaii prior to the overthrow, was a very progressive multi-ethnic nation for its day with many liberties that the US would only make legal much later in its own history. The term "Hawaiian" also has been very misused for the last 125 years or so. Hawaiian is a nationality, a term used by all who were and are part of the Hawaiian nation, including those non-Kanaka who conspired to overthrow Hawaii's last Queen. Hawaiian, if used as an ethnicity is only valid for those born on the Big Island of Hawaii. This distinction is what those ethnic Kanaka who believe in a Hawaii for Kanaka Maoli only is what they are very incorrect in their understanding, which leads them to exhibit the anti-haole behaviors many people in Hawaii see and sadly experience today.
I am a Kanaka Maoli, raised as an American, but favors the restoration of the nation of Hawaii. Although I had and probably will continue to have disagreements with many on this forum on the various issue discussed, I do not hate anyone here. In fact, should restoration take place in our lifetime, I would welcome those who could not trace their lineage back to the time before the annexation to apply for permanent residency or citizenship and enjoy what I said many times in this forum the economic benefits I truly believe can be realized, if Hawaii were not shackled with US federal regulations.
Pretty lengthly, but I hope I provided a better perspective of myself and the views I keep with respect to this subject matter. To you Inspector, I have nothing but the greatest respect, as you being a senior member of this forum, and hope you do not see me as someone filled with ignorant racist hate to you or any other person in this forum or Hawaii.
Sincerely,
Kuleana
-
So is that response to Inspector full of "opinions" or only "facts". Since you claim that some people disagree with you on various points, including you labeling them various derogatory terms, I'd like to hear your explanation for what you have written, given your previous statements regarding "opinions" and "facts".
While your at it, please give us the "legal" history of all the interactions of the people who first originally immigrated to the islands and their interactions with succeeding waves of immigrants, as well as the legal interactions of the various factions of people living on the various islands, who to those of us uninformed on the subtleties of these peoples' legal system, seem to have been something akin to violent conquest. Then please link that legal history to the legal history you claim is now relevant to the current state of things. Thanks.
-
So is that response to Inspector full of "opinions" or only "facts". Since you claim that some people disagree with you on various points, including you labeling them various derogatory terms, I'd like to hear your explanation for what you have written, given your previous statements regarding "opinions" and "facts".
While your at it, please give us the "legal" history of all the interactions of the people who first originally immigrated to the islands and their interactions with succeeding waves of immigrants, as well as the legal interactions of the various factions of people living on the various islands, who to those of us uninformed on the subtleties of these peoples' legal system, seem to have been something akin to violent conquest. Then please link that legal history to the legal history you claim is now relevant to the current state of things. Thanks.
I did not know this forum made you the official fact-checker.
I hope you scrutinize every post hereon this forum and demand each poster to clearly state and then justify their facts and/or opinions.
-
I did not know this forum made you the official fact-checker.
I did not know that either. Also, I did not claim that. And I do not believe anyone else claimed that either. But that would have required you to check the facts.
I hope you scrutinize every post hereon this forum and demand each poster to clearly state and then justify their facts and/or opinions.
I do do that quite frequently, especially when I read someone like you contradicting themselves, and when someone like you, as you've done here repeatedly, refuses to explain their obvious contradictions (aka "falsehoods") and instead engage in deflection and obfuscation. Don't get me wrong, I don't really expect you to even try to make sense of your nonsense (except by repeating your opinions over and over and claiming that those opinions are facts because you said so), I just ask in the interest of other readers who may not be familiar with the facts so they can clearly see the fact that you are deliberately presenting "opinion" as "fact" and then refusing to support your claims. Nor are you willing to comment on historical events that would obviously contradict your feigned dedication to the "law" and the rights of people who have been treated in a particular manner by "conquering forces" that does not suit your narrative.
And feel free at any time to actually answer the questions I've asked you. :shaka:
-
It is clear by your post that you merely want to argue for the sake of argument and further bait me into a running discussion with you that will see no end.
I made my position clear based on the available facts that anyone can access for themselves in regards to the legal status of Hawaii and all of the events that led to this effect.
Everyone is entitled to their own interpretation and I look forward to conversing with those in this thread who wish to have an open and sincere discourse.
Have a Happy Easter!
-
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop
"The strength of the Gish Gallop is in its ability to create the appearance of authority and control. The Galloper frames the debate and forces opponents to respond on their terms. The Galloper wins by making the point that their opponents have failed to disprove their arguments sufficiently or completely enough for their satisfaction. Their goal is not to win on the facts, but to minimize the time and effort they need to expend to achieve maximum apparent credibility, while ensuring that opponents expend maximum time and effort in rebuttal for inconsequential gains. They want to drop a bomb into your lap and run away, telling you it can only be disarmed when they say it is, and that it isn't their job to tell you when it's disarmed."
-
Studying the overthrow is extremely important, just like studying Wounded Knee and other crimes of the United States Government is essential in order to prevent them from happening again. Yes it kicked off a round of military expansionism which must have seemed great at the time, but it's also contributing to the erosion of the empire through budget deficits and diverting funding from critical domestic institutions in order to maintain the unstable status of sole Superpower.
At a local level learning how people used to do things back when the island was much more self sufficient is critical to warding off economic shocks, but it requires and open and honest evaluation of history and healing old wounds.
Simply insisting that other people with different opinions behave in a manner consistent with our beliefs is not productive for either side.
-
It is clear by your post that you merely want to argue for the sake of argument and further bait me into a running discussion with you that will see no end.
I made my position clear based on the available facts that anyone can access for themselves in regards to the legal status of Hawaii and all of the events that led to this effect.
Everyone is entitled to their own interpretation and I look forward to conversing with those in this thread who wish to have an open and sincere discourse.
Have a Happy Easter!
I usually only read the latest comments so If I'm repeating what has already been said I apologize.
I am a citizen of the state of Hawaii. I really don't care about the Hawaiian state that existed before
Hawaii illegally became American, any more than I care about the British colonies in America,
the colonies that were illegally taken from Britain.
I care about what is here and now. Culture is important, you don't want to lose
your roots, but you need to adapt or you will die.
I can't tell you what my culture is, I'm a Heinz 57, but I know it is way different now
than it was 50 years ago, and I know we cannot go back to those days.
Getting off the podium now.
Have a joyous Easter!
-
If the annexation was illegal, then you have no case for violation of your Constitutional rights, because the state would not be a state. If the annexation was legal, then you can address those violations -- except the annexation would have to be legal to do that.
Catch 22.
:rofl:
Well if you actually read the history and laws for legal annexation of a nation into statehood, the annexation of Hawai'i technically is illegal, as was the annexation of Texas, which served as the template for the legality of the annexation of Hawai'i.
"...the government of the United States understood that the only proper and lawful way for one nation to deal with another is by treaty. That principle is still part of International Law today. And the only way for the legislature of the United States to approve a treaty is by a two thirds vote of the Senate, per the Constitution for the United States of America.
The treaty was presented to the Senate in 1844 and was DEFEATED by a vote of 35 to 16. The following year, in 1845, the House of Representatives entered into the record a "Resolution of Annexation." The House of Representatives has no authority to initiate a matter of foreign affairs. After passing the resolution, the United States declared that Texas was a "State of the Union." This was an unlawful, fraudulent process which has been questioned since it was done, but the United States has failed at every turn to answer the questions regarding the unlawful process it used to acquire Texas. Secretary Upshur's own letter is evidence that a "Resolution" is NOT the proper and lawful way to annex a Nation as a State..."
-
Well if you actually read the history and laws for legal annexation of a nation into statehood, the annexation of Hawai'i technically is illegal, as was the annexation of Texas, which served as the template for the legality of the annexation of Hawai'i.
"...the government of the United States understood that the only proper and lawful way for one nation to deal with another is by treaty. That principle is still part of International Law today. And the only way for the legislature of the United States to approve a treaty is by a two thirds vote of the Senate, per the Constitution for the United States of America.
The treaty was presented to the Senate in 1844 and was DEFEATED by a vote of 35 to 16. The following year, in 1845, the House of Representatives entered into the record a "Resolution of Annexation." The House of Representatives has no authority to initiate a matter of foreign affairs. After passing the resolution, the United States declared that Texas was a "State of the Union." This was an unlawful, fraudulent process which has been questioned since it was done, but the United States has failed at every turn to answer the questions regarding the unlawful process it used to acquire Texas. Secretary Upshur's own letter is evidence that a "Resolution" is NOT the proper and lawful way to annex a Nation as a State..."
Be careful Q, the thought police is up and about...
They may just respond to your post saying that it is just your opinion and demand you partake in a mindless journey to justify your facts.
-
I care about what is here and now. Culture is important, you don't want to lose
your roots, but you need to adapt or you will die.
I used to joke with my several Mexican ancestry buddies when they would go on about SoCal becoming part of Mexico again: "BFD, I was born here, therefore I am a citizen of whatever it becomes, right?"
Being a SoCal native, i could claim being as Mexican as they were, if being born there was all that mattered.
Most had no argument, that even if I was a white man, being born there was all that mattered. They seemed to like my interpretation.
Too bad Calif has become such a leftist hellhole, I liked my Mexican friends far better than the liberal co-workers.
We had a mutual love of firearms in common, among other things.
-
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop
"The strength of the Gish Gallop is in its ability to create the appearance of authority and control. The Galloper frames the debate and forces opponents to respond on their terms. The Galloper wins by making the point that their opponents have failed to disprove their arguments sufficiently or completely enough for their satisfaction. Their goal is not to win on the facts, but to minimize the time and effort they need to expend to achieve maximum apparent credibility, while ensuring that opponents expend maximum time and effort in rebuttal for inconsequential gains. They want to drop a bomb into your lap and run away, telling you it can only be disarmed when they say it is, and that it isn't their job to tell you when it's disarmed."
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Red_herring
Red herring
A red herring, besides being a type of pickled fish, is a fallacious argument style in which an irrelevant or false topic is presented in an attempt to divert attention from the original issue, with the intention of "winning" an argument by leading attention away from the original argument and on to another, often unrelated topic.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because changing the topic of discussion does not count as an argument against a claim
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Straw_man
Straw man
A straw man is a logical fallacy which occurs when a debater intentionally misrepresents their opponent's argument as a weaker version, and rebuts said version — rather than their opponent's genuine argument. Intentional strawmanning is usually done with a certain goal in mind, including:
Avoiding real debate against an opponent's real argument, because the misrepresenter risks losing in fair debate
Making the opponent's position appear ridiculous as a way of poisoning the well
-
It is clear by your post that you merely want to argue for the sake of argument and further bait me into a running discussion with you that will see no end.
So, according to you that statement of yours is a "fact" and not an "opinion", right? I think that sums up the situation very well. You are capable of discerning my "want", right? Sure you are. Just like all the other crap ("illegal occupation", etc., etc., etc.) that you assert are facts when they clearly are nothing more that your bloviated opinions based upon your personal interpretations of actual events.
I made my position clear based on the available facts that anyone can access for themselves in regards to the legal status of Hawaii and all of the events that led to this effect.
And yet you fail to admit that your purported "facts" ("illegal occupation", etc.) are merely opinions. If they were truly "facts", and not mere opinions, they would be so recognized and there would be no "illegal occupation". How could there be? All the legal entities responsible would have recognized your "facts" and issued rulings/decisions (sometimes referred to as "opinions") and rectified the situation (certainly ended any "illegal occupation" at the very least). Anyone who, for whatever ignorant or malicious reasons, would knowingly recognize the obvious facts and yet deny them, would have been laughed out of court (everyone would know the universally recognized "facts"), and perhaps even been sanctioned by fine or imprisonment for deliberately lying in court.
Everyone is entitled to their own interpretation and I look forward to conversing with those in this thread who wish to have an open and sincere discourse.
Careful, "their own interpretation" is dangerously close to "opinion", and not "fact". How does one "interpret" a "fact"? "This certified-accurate thermometer currently reads 72 degrees." "My interpretation of that fact is that it is 80 degrees in here."
-
Be careful Q, the thought police is up and about...
They may just respond to your post saying that it is just your opinion and demand you partake in a mindless journey to justify your facts.
I'd hardly consider "justify your facts" as "a mindless journey", but I guess that's how you see it.
I don't think you know what "thought police" means. Though given your entire line of "thinking" here, would we be wrong to consider that you may believe that your "opinion"/"interpretaton", whatever it is, is a "fact"? I'm just askin'.
I'd like to hear your interpretation of Q's phrase "technically illegal".
-
Well if you actually read the history and laws for legal annexation of a nation into statehood, the annexation of Hawai'i technically is illegal, as was the annexation of Texas, which served as the template for the legality of the annexation of Hawai'i.
"...the government of the United States understood that the only proper and lawful way for one nation to deal with another is by treaty. That principle is still part of International Law today. And the only way for the legislature of the United States to approve a treaty is by a two thirds vote of the Senate, per the Constitution for the United States of America.
The treaty was presented to the Senate in 1844 and was DEFEATED by a vote of 35 to 16. The following year, in 1845, the House of Representatives entered into the record a "Resolution of Annexation." The House of Representatives has no authority to initiate a matter of foreign affairs. After passing the resolution, the United States declared that Texas was a "State of the Union." This was an unlawful, fraudulent process which has been questioned since it was done, but the United States has failed at every turn to answer the questions regarding the unlawful process it used to acquire Texas. Secretary Upshur's own letter is evidence that a "Resolution" is NOT the proper and lawful way to annex a Nation as a State..."
There should be a statute of limitations regarding any annexation, colonization, etc. If the aggrieved party doesn't petition for a hearing within a certain time limit, they resign themselves to accepting the outcome of the situation.
Hawaii became a state over 58 years ago. A generation is generally defined as about 30 years. After nearly 2 generations living as US citizens, I believe this entire conversation is unproductive, and in many respects counterproductive.
It's necessary to study history, but one must recognize it's impossible to change history.
-
There should be a statute of limitations regarding any annexation, colonization, etc. If the aggrieved party doesn't petition for a hearing within a certain time limit, they resign themselves to accepting the outcome of the situation.
While I agree with you that some illegal acts should have a statue of limitation, other illegal acts such as murder, rape, extortion, and acquiring territory without due process should not. There are many legitimate reasons in the examples I listed where the victims of those crimes may not have come forward to press their case. For example, in cases of rape or extortion, the victim might have been threatened with death and could only come forward when the victim felt confident enough after a duration of time.
Hawaii became a state over 58 years ago. A generation is generally defined as about 30 years. After nearly 2 generations living as US citizens, I believe this entire conversation is unproductive, and in many respects counterproductive.
With all due respect, how is the conversation of the illegal annexation and occupation of Hawaii by the US unproductive and/or counterproductive.
It's necessary to study history, but one must recognize it's impossible to change history.
I totally disagree.
It is possible for students of history to change things today to correct the wrongs of the past. Just look at the establishment of the US. The founding fathers of the US were all great historic scholars and had the foresight to create a nation state that has become a model for all other nations since then. The abolishment of the rule of the divine right of Kings, feudalism, the rights of man, the Right to Own and Bear Arms, and etc. All of these great acts were done to the dismay of the empires of the ancient and current World they lived.
-
It's necessary to study history, but one must recognize it's impossible to change history.
I totally disagree.
Of course you do.
You aren't factoring in the cumulative effects of actions. Like in SciFi movies about time travel. If you change one thing, so many other things that were predicated by that act will no longer be the same. Therefore, the moral dilemma of hypothetically going back in time and killing Hitler, for example, could unleash a chain of events which create a world dominated by the USSR under Communism.
So, no, you can't "correct the wrongs of the past," because there is no way to retroactively know what that correction does, either beneficially or detrimentally, to the people not responsible for the wrong as well as those supposedly wronged.
Putting that in context, you can't return the lands to the people who owned them -- I would guess most who owned land in the early 1900s are gone now. Do you give that wealth to the owners' ancestors? You don't know if the descendants would have kept or sold that land. You don't know if they might have been under another country's flag and had their land annexed. There's no logical method of changing a single act you now deem illegal and unravel that ball of string while rewinding again the way it would be in another alternate reality.
So, no. You can not change history. What you can try to do is pay reparations or return land to those with a claim. But you can't undo the wrong done to people who no longer walk the Earth. It's impossible.
-
But you can't undo the wrong done to people who no longer walk the Earth. It's impossible.
The last time I checked, there are Native Hawaiians who still exist to today, who are making a claim for the illegal occupation of Hawaii to end as well as the restoration of their political authority from the US, based on the fact due process for the annexation of Hawaii was not valid under US Constitutional Law.
I do not understand why the nature of this claim is so hard to objectively comprehend?
-
The last time I checked, there are Native Hawaiians who still exist to today, who are making a claim for the illegal occupation of Hawaii to end as well as the restoration of their political authority from the US, based on the fact due process for the annexation of Hawaii was not valid under US Constitutional Law.
I do not understand why the nature of this claim is so hard to objectively comprehend?
"Some" is not "all." Again, you cannot correct the mistakes of the past. Even if you think reparations to those still living is possible, you ignore reality.
The problem you keep regurgitating, as if repeating it give it more power than the first 10 times, is reversing annexation is not viable. If it ever happens, the population would rise up to vote to remain a state. I guarantee it.
Continuing to post as if you're changing minds and righting wrongs is futile.
-
The problem you keep regurgitating, as if repeating it give it more power than the first 10 times, is reversing annexation is not viable. If it ever happens, the population would rise up to vote to remain a state. I guarantee it.
What population are you referring to?
Native Hawaiians? If so, have to you talked a number of Native Hawaiians on this issue?
If you are talking about the general populace who can not trace their ancestors as being citizens of Hawaii prior to the illegal annexation by the US, they essentially have no legal say in this matter based on both US Constitutional and international law.
-
What population are you referring to?
Native Hawaiians? If so, have to you talked a number of Native Hawaiians on this issue?
If you are talking about the general populace who can not trace their ancestors as being citizens of Hawaii prior to the illegal annexation by the US, they essentially have no legal say in this matter based on both US Constitutional and international law.
You can't put the genie back in the bottle. Think of all the mixed races in the islands with Filipinos, Portuguese, Japanese, Chinese, European, etc, etc .... That's a lot of people with Hawaiian blood in them.
Maybe Ancestry.com can help you figure out who counts as "Hawaiian" and who doesn't.
-
You can't put the genie back in the bottle. Think of all the mixed races in the islands with Filipinos, Portuguese, Japanese, Chinese, European, etc, etc .... That's a lot of people with Hawaiian blood in them.
Maybe Ancestry.com can help you figure out who counts as "Hawaiian" and who doesn't.
People can fake DNA tests, but ancestry.com may be another viable alternative.
However, the prevailing technique to determine who are the descendants from Hawaii before the annexation by the US in 1898 is done through the existing family records found in the Hawaii State archives located at the rear of Iolani Palace.
-
People can fake DNA tests, but ancestry.com may be another viable alternative.
However, the prevailing technique to determine who are the descendants from Hawaii before the annexation by the US in 1898 is done through the existing family records found in the Hawaii State archives located at the rear of Iolani Palace.
So simple. Why haven't you taken your plan to the legislature and had all this taken care of long ago? The longer you wait, the less likely it'll ever happen.
-
So simple. Why haven't you taken your plan to the legislature and had all this taken care of long ago? The longer you wait, the less likely it'll ever happen.
Who said no one tried, there have been inquires/complaints by Native Hawaiians submitted to the US Department of State and the International Crimes Tribunal at the Hague.
-
Who said no one tried, there have been inquires/complaints by Native Hawaiians submitted to the US Department of State and the International Crimes Tribunal at the Hague.
I was talking about YOU. You type for days on here about all the minute details on what needs to happen in thread after thread after thread.
How much effort have YOU given toward actually making it happen?
If the answer is zero, you're illustrating why I said these "discussions" are unproductive. Repeating the same rhetoric in a 2A forum over and over does nothing.
Shit, or get off the pot.
I'm done here.
MODS .... PLEASE CLOSE THIS THREAD, AS THE OP ASKED SEVERAL TIMES.
-
Who said no one tried, there have been inquires/complaints by Native Hawaiians submitted to the US Department of State and the International Crimes Tribunal at the Hague.
So all those legal authorities ignored, according to you, the "facts"? Surely the Hague is capable of recognizing "facts", aren't they? So the Hague issued a judgment that the U.S. is "illegally occupying" the Hawaiian islands. Good to know. Who is going to enforce that judgment when?
What is your standard for "Native Hawaiian", 1/64th?
-
There should be a statute of limitations regarding any annexation, colonization, etc. If the aggrieved party doesn't petition for a hearing within a certain time limit, they resign themselves to accepting the outcome of the situation.
Hawaii became a state over 58 years ago. A generation is generally defined as about 30 years. After nearly 2 generations living as US citizens, I believe this entire conversation is unproductive, and in many respects counterproductive.
It's necessary to study history, but one must recognize it's impossible to change history.
So if a foreign government illegally overthrew the state of Hawai'i and/or the nation of America, after 30 years you would accept and be perfectly fine with what transgressed? Find that doubtful.
Kuleana will verify my disdain for the monarchy and kingdom of Hawai'i due to my views on its actions leading up to the overthrow, but that doesn't change the fact that annexation of Hawai'i, in accordance with constitutional law of the United States, was illegal. Regardless of how you think things should be or how you feel it should be, the fact remains that there are laws in place which were blatantly violated by the United States government, in order to secure Hawaii as part of the nation.
What good is a country if it can't follow its own laws?
People on this forum constantly cry about their gun rights getting taken away, so by your logic, after 30 years, they should just move on.
Also, I challenge anyone on this forum saying that "Hawaiians should have fought for their country" to provide evidence of what they have done to prevent the usurpation of their 2nd amendment rights, let alone other constitutional rights. Last i checked, all of you did nothing but sign some petitions and grumble about yourselves, talking about what you would do, what you're going to do, how things should be, etc; no different than what Hawaiians who recognize the illegality of statehood have done and continue to do. Seems to be a bunch of pots calling the kettle black, failing to recognize their hypocrisy.
-
MODS .... PLEASE CLOSE THIS THREAD, AS THE OP ASKED SEVERAL TIMES.
This thread has become a great medium in the presenting and participating in discourse with respect to the reasons as to why that student lowered the US Flag in favor for the Hawaiian National Flag. Thanks to this thread, the many issues regarding Hawaii's past that still and will continue to be an issue for Hawaii now and into the future was given an opportunity to be seen to those in this forum who were interested in learning more on this topic.
This is what makes this forum so great. Regardless of the sensitivity and/or unpopularity of the issue discussed among members, this forum protects free speech. Love or hate it, the 2nd Amendment has and will always defend the 1st Amendment!
It is saddening though that some members of this forum forget this cherished understanding protected in the US Bill of Rights.
-
So all those legal authorities ignored, according to you, the "facts"? Surely the Hague is capable of recognizing "facts", aren't they? So the Hague issued a judgment that the U.S. is "illegally occupying" the Hawaiian islands. Good to know. Who is going to enforce that judgment when?
What is your standard for "Native Hawaiian", 1/64th?
In accordance with Kingdom law, all citizens born on Hawaiian soil are considered native Hawaiians, as the term native Hawaiian applied to Hawaiian citizens. You are confusing Hawaiian citizens with the indigenous people of Hawaii, or Kanaka Maoli, which can verified through genetic sequencing.
-
People can fake DNA tests, but ancestry.com may be another viable alternative.
:wacko:
-
This thread has become a great medium in the presenting and participating in discourse with respect to the reasons as to why that student lowered the US Flag in favor for the Hawaiian National Flag. Thanks to this thread, the many issues regarding Hawaii's past that still and will continue to be an issue for Hawaii now and into the future was given an opportunity to be seen to those in this forum who were interested in learning more on this topic.
This is what makes this forum so great. Regardless of the sensitivity and/or unpopularity of the issue discussed among members, this forum protects free speech. Love or hate it, the 2nd Amendment has and will always defend the 1st Amendment!
It is saddening though that some members of this forum forget this cherished understanding protected in the US Bill of Rights.
There are acceptable forum rules on well-moderated sites which prohibit cross-posting. Repeating the same information in multiple threads is supposed to be accomplished by posting the link to the single full text of the post.
So, if you want to argue for this forum's greatness, maybe start following proper rules? Finding the links is easy. Retyping the same arguments and words repeatedly has to be a time-waster for you if you know it's already on here.
-
So simple. Why haven't you taken your plan to the legislature and had all this taken care of long ago? The longer you wait, the less likely it'll ever happen.
Just for you.
Hawaiian Kingdom Legal Team Complete
Posted on August 22, 2017
Dr. Keanu Sai recently returned from London after meeting with the Matrix Chambers who has joined his legal team in the international commission of inquiry proceedings stemming from the Larsen v. Hawaiian Kingdom (1999-2001) case held under the auspices of the Permanent Court of Arbitration. Matrix Chambers is one of the leading law firms in the United Kingdom and has represented countries before international courts and tribunals.
These proceedings were initiated on January 19, 2017 by Special Agreement between the Provisional Government of the Hawaiian Kingdom and Lance Paul Larsen. Both Parties agreed to the rules provided under Part III—International Commissions of Inquiry (Articles 9-36) of the 1907 Hague Convention for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes. Once the Commission of Inquiry has been formed they will hold their hearings in the Hawaiian Kingdom. The formation of the Commission is moving forward. According to the Special Agreement,
“The Commission is requested to determine: First, what is the function and role of the Government of the Hawaiian Kingdom in accordance with the basic norm and framework of international humanitarian law; and, Second, what are the duties and obligations of the Government of the Hawaiian Kingdom toward Lance Paul Larsen, and, by extension, toward all Hawaiian subjects domiciled in Hawaiian territory and abroad in accordance with the basic norm and framework of international humanitarian law.”
Dr. Sai heads the Hawaiian Kingdom legal team as Agent, Professor Federico Lenzerini from the University of Siena Law School in Italy is the Deputy-Agent, and Ben Emmerson, QC, from the Matrix Chambers is Counsel. Mr. Emmerson is the former United Nations Special Rapporteur on Counter Terrorism and Human Rights. He was also elected by the United Nations General Assembly as one of the Judges for the International Criminal Court for Rwanda and the International Criminal Court for the former Yugoslavia. His expertise is in international criminal law and served as Special Advisor to the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court.
The first allegations of war crimes committed in Hawai‘i, being unfair trial, unlawful confinement and pillaging, were made the subject of an arbitral dispute in Lance Larsen vs. Hawaiian Kingdom at the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA). Oral hearings were held at the PCA on December 7, 8, and 11, 2000. As an intergovernmental organization, the PCA must possess institutional jurisdiction before it can form ad hoc tribunals. The jurisdiction of the PCA is distinguished from the subject-matter jurisdiction of the ad hoc tribunal over the dispute between the parties.
Disputes capable of being accepted under the PCA’s institutional jurisdiction include disputes between: any two or more states; a state and an international organization, such as an agency of the United Nations; two or more international organizations; a state and a private party; and an international organization and a private entity. The PCA accepted the case as a dispute between a state and a private party, and acknowledged the Hawaiian Kingdom as a non-Contracting Power under Article 47 of the 1907 Hague Convention for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes. As stated on the PCA’s website:
“Lance Paul Larsen, a resident of Hawaii, brought a claim against the Hawaiian Kingdom by its Council of Regency (“Hawaiian Kingdom”) on the grounds that the Government of the Hawaiian Kingdom is in continual violation of: (a) its 1849 Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation with the United States of America, as well as the principles of international law laid down in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969 and (b) the principles of international comity, for allowing the unlawful imposition of American municipal laws over the claimant’s person within the territorial jurisdiction of the Hawaiian Kingdom.”
The Government of the Hawaiian Kingdom, as it stood on January 17 1893, was restored in 1995, in situ and not in exile. An acting Council of Regency comprised of four Ministers—Interior, Foreign Affairs, Finance and the Attorney General—was established in accordance with the Hawaiian constitution and the doctrine of necessity to serve in the absence of the executive monarch. By virtue of this process a Provisional Government, comprised of officers de facto, was established. According to U.S. constitutional scholar Thomas Cooley,
“A provisional government is supposed to be a government de facto for the time being; a government that in some emergency is set up to preserve order; to continue the relations of the people it acts for with foreign nations until there shall be time and opportunity for the creation of a permanent government. It is not in general supposed to have authority beyond that of a mere temporary nature resulting from some great necessity, and its authority is limited to the necessity.”
Like other governments formed in exile during foreign occupations, the Hawaiian government did not receive its mandate from the Hawaiian citizenry, but rather by virtue of Hawaiian constitutional law, and therefore represents the Hawaiian state. The Provisional Government is not a new government, but rather a restoration of the Hawaiian Government that existed on January 17, 1893, before it was illegally seized and transformed into an insurgency by the United States. In 2001, Bederman and Hilbert reported in the American Journal of International Law,
“At the center of the PCA proceedings was … that the Hawaiian Kingdom continues to exist and that the Hawaiian Council of Regency (representing the Hawaiian Kingdom) is legally responsible under international law for the protection of Hawaiian subjects, including the claimant. In other words, the Hawaiian Kingdom was legally obligated to protect Larsen from the United States’ ‘unlawful imposition [over him] of [its] municipal laws’ through its political subdivision, the State of Hawaii. As a result of this responsibility, Larsen submitted, the Hawaiian Council of Regency should be liable for any international law violations that the United States had committed against him.”
The Tribunal concluded that it did not possess subject matter jurisdiction in the case because of the indispensible third party rule. The Tribunal explained:
“It follows that the Tribunal cannot determine whether the respondent [the Hawaiian Kingdom] has failed to discharge its obligations towards the claimant [Larsen] without ruling on the legality of the acts of the United States of America. Yet that is precisely what the Monetary Gold principle precludes the Tribunal from doing. As the International Court of Justice explained in the East Timor case, ‘the Court could not rule on the lawfulness of the conduct of a State when its judgment would imply an evaluation of the lawfulness of the conduct of another State which is not a party to the case.’”
The Tribunal, however, acknowledged that the parties to the arbitration could pursue fact-finding. The Tribunal stated, “At one stage of the proceedings the question was raised whether some of the issues which the parties wished to present might not be dealt with by way of a fact-finding process. In addition to its role as a facilitator of international arbitration and conciliation, the Permanent Court of Arbitration has various procedures for fact-finding, both as between States and otherwise.”
The Tribunal noted “that the interstate fact-finding commissions so far held under the auspices of the Permanent Court of Arbitration have not confined themselves to pure questions of fact but have gone on, expressly or by clear implication, to deal with issues of responsibility for those facts.” The Tribunal pointed out that “Part III of each of the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 provide for International Commissions of Inquiry.”
To date, there have only been five international commissions of inquiry held under the auspices of the PCA—the first in 1905, The Dogger Bank Case (Great Britain – Russia), and the last in 1962, Red Crusader’ Incident (Great Britain – Denmark). These commissions of inquiry formed under the 1907 Hague Convention for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes serve in similar fashion to grand juries where they not only inquire into the facts of the case but also assign criminal or civil liability for another court or tribunal to prosecute.
-
Again took place over a hundred years ago
What about all of us US citizens and generations who have bought homes and raised families here in Hawaii?
-
Again took place over a hundred years ago
What about all of us US citizens and generations who have bought homes and raised families here in Hawaii?
Who said anything about kicking anyone out or confiscating lands in an restoration event? In my view, as I mentioned countless times before, why would any nation kick out property tax payers?
-
Again took place over a hundred years ago
What about all of us US citizens and generations who have bought homes and raised families here in Hawaii?
What about all the immigrants who came to the US illegally, have been here for decades, have raised children and bought homes? Since it took place a long time ago, you should accept it, just as you feel Hawaiians should get over it because it took place a hundred years ago.
By principle, if you are against illegal immigrants being in the US, then you should support the repatriation of American citizens back to their country, assuming that the nation of Hawaii would refuse to grant them citizenship and let them and their families stay.
-
Who said anything about kicking anyone out or confiscating lands in an restoration event? In my view, as I mentioned countless times before, why would any nation kick out property tax payers?
Why would anyone build a $500K raised rail project that serves a small number of commuters (maybe 3-5%) at a final cost of over $3 billion, assuming it's ever completed? Especially, when that money is desperately needed for infrastructure projects that are going to cost even more in the future.
Asking hypotheticals that are supposed to assume common sense in decision making here isn't going to get the answer you assume it will.
-
So if a foreign government illegally overthrew the state of Hawai'i and/or the nation of America, after 30 years you would accept and be perfectly fine with what transgressed? Find that doubtful.
Kuleana will verify my disdain for the monarchy and kingdom of Hawai'i due to my views on its actions leading up to the overthrow, but that doesn't change the fact that annexation of Hawai'i, in accordance with constitutional law of the United States, was illegal. Regardless of how you think things should be or how you feel it should be, the fact remains that there are laws in place which were blatantly violated by the United States government, in order to secure Hawaii as part of the nation.
What good is a country if it can't follow its own laws?
People on this forum constantly cry about their gun rights getting taken away, so by your logic, after 30 years, they should just move on.
Also, I challenge anyone on this forum saying that "Hawaiians should have fought for their country" to provide evidence of what they have done to prevent the usurpation of their 2nd amendment rights, let alone other constitutional rights. Last i checked, all of you did nothing but sign some petitions and grumble about yourselves, talking about what you would do, what you're going to do, how things should be, etc; no different than what Hawaiians who recognize the illegality of statehood have done and continue to do. Seems to be a bunch of pots calling the kettle black, failing to recognize their hypocrisy.
Q raises very important points.
In my post to Inspector earlier in this thread, I acknowledged that my personal views on the restoration of Hawaii are irrelevant. US Constitutional Law is the law of the US and if there is any violations of that law, it is the US Government's responsibility to correct such violation. THERE IS NO STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN REGARDS TO ANY VIOLATION OF THE US CONSTITUTION.
This is no different as the liberals of the US who have for many years and currently trying to disarm Americans, which not only violates the 2nd Amendment, but are doing so without due process. Suppose all 50 states create laws banning guns and the federal government does nothing. Every 2nd Amendment supporter would be up in arms and would rebel until the end of time until they correct the injustice that has occurred.
Such as those who are seeking redress to the illegal annexation of Hawaii.
-
Who said anything about kicking anyone out or confiscating lands in an restoration event?
Plenty of people have. Some of them may be the ones you have labeled "ignorant racists". Is this another "fact" of yours? I.e. "No one said anything about kicking anyone out or confiscating their property."
In my view, as I mentioned countless times before, why would any nation kick out property tax payers?
Because they are, as you phrased it, "ignorant racists", and that is their primary ideological motivation?
-
Plenty of people have. Some of them may be the ones you have labeled "ignorant racists". Is this another "fact" of yours? I.e. "No one said anything about kicking anyone out or confiscating their property."
Because they are, as you phrased it, "ignorant racists", and that is their primary ideological motivation?
Please reference a specific post where Kuleana mentioned kicking people out of Hawai'i for being US citizens or called them ignorant racists; I can't seem to locate it in this thread
-
Who said anything about kicking anyone out or confiscating lands in an restoration event? In my view, as I mentioned countless times before, why would any nation kick out property tax payers?
Plenty of people have. Some of them may be the ones you have labeled "ignorant racists". Is this another "fact" of yours? I.e. "No one said anything about kicking anyone out or confiscating their property."
Because they are, as you phrased it, "ignorant racists", and that is their primary ideological motivation?
Please reference a specific post where Kuleana mentioned kicking people out of Hawai'i for being US citizens or called them ignorant racists; I can't seem to locate it in this thread
Perhaps there's a reading comprehension issue. Kuleana did NOT write "When or where did I say anything about kicking anyone out or confiscating lands in an restoration event?"
He wrote "Who said anything about kicking anyone out or confiscating lands in an restoration event?"
Plenty of people have made such statements many times. I did not write that Kuleana was of such an opinion, and I did not write that Kuleana wrote that in this thread.
Got it?
-
In accordance with Kingdom law, all citizens born on Hawaiian soil are considered native Hawaiians, as the term native Hawaiian applied to Hawaiian citizens. You are confusing Hawaiian citizens with the indigenous people of Hawaii, or Kanaka Maoli, which can verified through genetic sequencing.
Let me rephrase the question: What will the criteria be, once the Hague (or whomever) has ruled and enforced the re-establishment of the "Hawaiian Kingdom" and ended the "illegal occupation" by the United States of America, that will establish that any particular individual will be eligible to exercise any rights, privileges or immunities, should there be any, in the "Hawaiian Kingdom"? (As in the United States of America the criteria is "citizenship".)
-
Let me rephrase the question: What will the criteria be, once the Hague (or whomever) has ruled and enforced the re-establishment of the "Hawaiian Kingdom" and ended the "illegal occupation" by the United States of America, that will establish that any particular individual will be eligible to exercise any rights, privileges or immunities, should there be any, in the "Hawaiian Kingdom"? (As in the United States of America the criteria is "citizenship".)
Based on international law, the US still has the responsibility to administer Hawaii, but under Hawaii Kingdom law, until which time the citizenry of Hawaii reestablishes its own civil government. Any title to land held by the US federal or its proxy state government would be returned to the authority to the nation state of Hawaii. All citizens and non-citizens would be subject to Hawaii Kingdom law, except for those whose home nation had prior treaties with Hawaii.
-
Based on international law, the US still has the responsibility to administer Hawaii, but under Hawaii Kingdom law, until which time the citizenry of Hawaii reestablishes its own civil government. Any title to land held by the US federal or its proxy state government would be returned to the authority to the nation state of Hawaii. All citizens and non-citizens would be subject to Hawaii Kingdom law, except for those whose home nation had prior treaties with Hawaii.
Again, what are the criteria to be a citizen?
-
Again, what are the criteria to be a citizen?
Likely end up like South Africa.................People owning land being killed for it.
-
Likely end up like South Africa.................People owning land being killed for it.
Well, yeah, but they stole it from one of the prior waves of immigrants who had stolen it from a prior wave of immigrants, so, you know, that's not fair.
-
Again, what are the criteria to be a citizen?
People of Native Hawaiian ancestry would automatically be offered citizenship should they desire. Some might not want to do so.
Other non-Kanaka Maoli who can prove they are a direct descendant from someone who had citizenship of Hawaii prior to the annexation by the US in 1898 would naturally be offered citizenship. Citizen records of the Kingdom of Hawaii as well as the short-lived Republic of Hawaii can be accessed via the State Archives located at the rear of Iolani Palace.
All other individuals can apply for citizenship of Hawaii based on the legal requirements regarding this topic referenced to Hawaii's Constitution of 1864.
-
Likely end up like South Africa.................People owning land being killed for it.
Very insulting statement.
Your remarks can potentially be referring to some of your friends or people in your neighborhood.
-
Well, yeah, but they stole it from one of the prior waves of immigrants who had stolen it from a prior wave of immigrants, so, you know, that's not fair.
Totally out of context statement to misdirect from the base argument.
:stopjack:
The annexation of Hawaii by the US was a violation against the US CONSTITUTION.
-
Totally out of context statement to misdirect from the base argument.
:stopjack:
The annexation of Hawaii by the US was a violation against the US CONSTITUTION.
Yeah, I understand you want to pick and choose which "takeovers" (violent or otherwise) by one group over the already inhabiting group are "violations", and which are "something else" that you refuse to address because it doesn't suit your narrative. If you had a shred of integrity or honesty you'd look at all the instances (at least as far as these islands are concerned) and ask whether the people being "displaced" (e.g. killed or run off or made slaves/captives, etc.) considered what was happening to them to be "a violation", and then tell us how some violations are less violative than other violations. Since the other "violations" that you refuse to address were far more violent and had far more serious repercussions for the existing population, you conveniently assert that those violations are irrelevant, and only the "violation" you selectively choose to focus on is the important one. Hypocrisy.
-
People of Native Hawaiian ancestry would automatically be offered citizenship should they desire. Some might not want to do so.
Other non-Kanaka Maoli who can prove they are a direct descendant from someone who had citizenship of Hawaii prior to the annexation by the US in 1898 would naturally be offered citizenship. Citizen records of the Kingdom of Hawaii as well as the short-lived Republic of Hawaii can be accessed via the State Archives located at the rear of Iolani Palace.
All other individuals can apply for citizenship of Hawaii based on the legal requirements regarding this topic referenced to Hawaii's Constitution of 1864.
How is the word "racist" not an apt description of that policy re "ancestry"? Or at minimum, as per today's "politically correct" terminology, a "race-based" policy?
-
Yeah, I understand you want to pick and choose which "takeovers" (violent or otherwise) by one group over the already inhabiting group are "violations", and which are "something else" that you refuse to address because it doesn't suit your narrative. If you had a shred of integrity or honesty you'd look at all the instances (at least as far as these islands are concerned) and ask whether the people being "displaced" (e.g. killed or run off or made slaves/captives, etc.) considered what was happening to them to be "a violation", and then tell us how some violations are less violative than other violations. Since the other "violations" that you refuse to address were far more violent and had far more serious repercussions for the existing population, you conveniently assert that those violations are irrelevant, and only the "violation" you selectively choose to focus on is the important one. Hypocrisy.
menehune :closed:
-
Yeah, I understand you want to pick and choose which "takeovers" (violent or otherwise) by one group over the already inhabiting group are "violations", and which are "something else" that you refuse to address because it doesn't suit your narrative. If you had a shred of integrity or honesty you'd look at all the instances (at least as far as these islands are concerned) and ask whether the people being "displaced" (e.g. killed or run off or made slaves/captives, etc.) considered what was happening to them to be "a violation", and then tell us how some violations are less violative than other violations. Since the other "violations" that you refuse to address were far more violent and had far more serious repercussions for the existing population, you conveniently assert that those violations are irrelevant, and only the "violation" you selectively choose to focus on is the important one. Hypocrisy.
Lots of verbage, but I am at a loss of your central contention in this post.
-
How is the word "racist" not an apt description of that policy re "ancestry"? Or at minimum, as per today's "politically correct" terminology, a "race-based" policy?
There is nothing racist to those who have a right to claim citizenship of a restored nation of Hawaii. Citizens of the Kingdom as well as the so-called Republic of Hawaii were of many ethnicites and it is their decendants that have a legal right to regain their citizenship should they so desire.
-
The annexation of Hawaii by the US was a violation against the US CONSTITUTION.
All other individuals can apply for citizenship of Hawaii based on the legal requirements regarding this topic referenced to Hawaii's Constitution of 1864.
Haha. That's a good one. You appeal to the U.S. Constitution as having been violated, and in the next breath appeal to the unconstitutionally established Hawaii Constitution of 1864, which completely violated the existing Constitution of 1852 which required a process of voting by delegates to amend, much less abolish and replace (which is exactly what happened) as executed by your "King Kamehameha V" who simply abolished the prior existing constitution and wrote his own and said "This is the Constitution, because I said so". (Okay, that's a paraphrase of "GRANTED BY HIS MAJESTY KAMEHAMEHA V, BY THE GRACE OF GOD, KING OF THE HAWAIIAN ISLANDS, ON THE TWENTIETH DAY OF AUGUST, A.D. 1864.") Or is this "fake history"?
The Constitution of 1864 of the Kingdom of Hawaii was a rewrite of the 1852 constitution issued by KingKamehameha III. It dramatically changed the way Hawaii's government worked by increasing the power of the king and changing the way the kingdom's legislature worked. It was Hawaii's constitution from 1864 through 1887,during the reigns of kings Kamehameha V, Lunalilo, and Kal€kaua.
Kamehameha V wrote the Constitution of 1864.
Kamehameha V ascended the throne in 1863. He was a firm believer that the king should be the person firmly incontrol of Hawaii's government, as it had been done in Hawaii for hundreds of years before the passage of the1840 and 1852 constitutions. Kamehameha V (as well as his predecessor, Kamehameha IV) was often irritated by the controls on his power by the 1852 constitution. Thus, when Kamehameha V ascended the throne, he refused to take an oath to the 1852 constitution. Instead,he called for a constitutional convention.
The Constitutional Convention
For the convention, delegates were elected by the population. They met at Kawaiaha'o on July 7, 1864.Kamehameha V, conferring with his advisors, drafted a constitution and presented it to the delegates of the Constitutional Convention. The members of the convention, however, were not able to agree on Kamehameha V's constitution. Their main concern was of Kamehameha V's new voting requirements. Kamehameha V quickly grew impatient and dissolved the convention. Then, he simply announced that his constitution would replace the 1852 constitution as the ultimate law of the land, even though Kamehameha V's actions did not follow the provisions set by the 1852 constitution on amending the constitution.
https://www.scribd.com/document/230935204/1864-Constitution-of-the-Kingdom-of-Hawaii
* * * * *
Also, I don't see any provision in that constitution for requirements for citizenship. I see requirements to be an "elector" (aka "voter"), the criteria for which are: male, able to read and write, owning property of a certain minimal valuation, and not being an "idiotic person" (the words of the constitution, not mine). Please refer me to the article denoting the requirements for citizenship.
And I see numerous phrases and ideas lifted almost verbatim from the U.S. Constitution Bill of Rights, including even "no soldier shall, in time of peace, be quartered in any house without the consent of the owner...". Despite all the references to rights contained in the U.S. Bill of Rights I did notice the conspicuous glaring absence of any right to keep and bear arms. In fact the only reference to "arms" at all is in a prohibition... re the right to assemble... "All men shall have the right, in an orderly and peaceable manner, to assemble, without arms".
Then there are the lists of multiple things that no one but the King can do, and the laws that apply to everyone BUT the king... welcome to the Monarchy! Can't wait to see you guys living the good life under that rule.
-
And I see numerous phrases and ideas lifted almost verbatim from the U.S. Constitution Bill of Rights, including even "no soldier shall, in time of peace, be quartered in any house without the consent of the owner...". Despite all the references to rights contained in the U.S. Bill of Rights I did notice the conspicuous glaring absence of any right to keep and bear arms. In fact the only reference to "arms" at all is in a prohibition... re the right to assemble... "All men shall have the right, in an orderly and peaceable manner, to assemble, without arms".
Absence of a particular phrase does not mean subjects during the Kingdom did not own firearms.
Had the monarchy forbade the ownership of firearms, there might not have been an overthrow of Hawaii's last Queen in 1893.
-
Absence of a particular phrase does not mean subjects during the Kingdom did not own firearms.
No. I never wrote nor implied that. It just meant that no one in "the Kingdom" had any right or manner to appeal to any law or right in order to keep and bear arms should the "King" decide he didn't want certain people to have arms. Which obviously he didn't want his "subjects" to have said right, considering that he copied most of the other rights listed in the U.S. Constitution Bill of Rights. And he unilaterally illegally instituted a "constitution" which increased his power to the point of him in reality being a dictator wherein he could easily have issued a diktat confiscating any arms, including firearms, from any group or individuals he chose to disarm.
Had the monarchy forbade the ownership of firearms, there might not have been an overthrow of Hawaii's last Queen in 1893.
Yeah, I guess they missed the boat on the advantages of a disarmed population. Maybe next time.
I notice you didn't comment on the fact that the constitution you refer us to for the apparently non-existent article(s) re requirements for citizenship was established totally illegally by a dictator (aka "king") who "violated" and de facto abolished the rule of law regarding amending the previous legally operational constitution and replaced it with his own by monarchical fiat. I wonder why no "explanation" from you? You seem to be so adamant about the "violation" of the U.S. Constitution re "annexation" and yet silent on the dictatorial "violations" of law by your beloved "king". :rofl:
-
ATTENTION MODS
Again. I made a mistake.
For the sake and survival of this 2A forum please close this thread. On second thought, please consider closing this sub forum as well. Focus on 2A stuff. Guns and equipment.
-
ATTENTION MODS
Again. I made a mistake.
For the sake and survival of this 2A forum please close this thread. On second thought, please consider closing this sub forum as well. Focus on 2A stuff. Guns and equipment.
Mods... also please end the policy that forces people to read this thread. That just doesn't seem "right". Thanks. And while your at it, please delete all comments on the website that might offend someone. :shaka:
-
I notice you didn't comment on the fact that the constitution you refer us to for the apparently non-existent article(s) re requirements for citizenship was established totally illegally by a dictator (aka "king") who "violated" and de facto abolished the rule of law regarding amending the previous legally operational constitution and replaced it with his own by monarchical fiat. I wonder why no "explanation" from you? You seem to be so adamant about the "violation" of the U.S. Constitution re "annexation" and yet silent on the dictatorial "violations" of law by your beloved "king". :rofl:
It is very easy to use presentism to criticize and not understand the context as to what led Kamehameha V to take the actions that he did that led to the Constitution of 1864. Let us look at the changes of the Constitution of 1852 versus 1864.
First of all, Kamehameha V did increase his power as well as consolidated his power by eliminating the office of kuhina nui and eliminated the Privy Council. I find what is so terrible about that? If the King felt those institutions were not effective in the smooth running of his nation and were actually creating more bureaucracy preventing the changes necessary to improve the lives of his subjects, who am I or anyone to challenge his right to do so?
Second, he combined the House of Nobles and House of Representatives into one body. Again, is there a problem here?
Finally, he added additional voter qualifications of literacy and the ownership of property. Although I would take some issue of the property qualification, I see no problem with having only literate people having the right to vote.
Ultimately, the citizens of Hawaii did not mind the changes as none of the legislative body nor general populace took any substantial legal actions to challenge the Constitution of 1864. In fact, if there was any Constitution of Hawaii that could be considered not enacted by due process, it was the American descendant business and political leaders that used their legally own firearms at gunpoint to impose the infamous "Bayonet Constitution" of 1887. If you want to split hairs on this particular subject, why did you not mention this act committed by the same individuals who would later illegally overthrow Hawaii's last Queen, with the sole goal of annexation by the US?
-
ATTENTION MODS
Again. I made a mistake.
For the sake and survival of this 2A forum please close this thread. On second thought, please consider closing this sub forum as well. Focus on 2A stuff. Guns and equipment.
Why do you feel this thread you started or this sub forum is a threat to the survival of 2a Hawaii?
-
It is very easy to use presentism to criticize and not understand the context as to what led Kamehameha V to take the actions that he did that led to the Constitution of 1864. Let us look at the changes of the Constitution of 1852 versus 1864.
First of all, Kamehameha V did increase his power as well as consolidated his power by eliminating the office of kuhina nui and eliminated the Privy Council. I find what is so terrible about that? If the King felt those institutions were not effective in the smooth running of his nation and were actually creating more bureaucracy preventing the changes necessary to improve the lives of his subjects, who am I or anyone to challenge his right to do so?
Second, he combined the House of Nobles and House of Representatives into one body. Again, is there a problem here?
Finally, he added additional voter qualifications of literacy and the ownership of property. Although I would take some issue of the property qualification, I see no problem with having only literate people having the right to vote.
Ultimately, the citizens of Hawaii did not mind the changes as none of the legislative body nor general populace took any substantial legal actions to challenge the Constitution of 1864. In fact, if there was any Constitution of Hawaii that could be considered not enacted by due process, it was the American descendant business and political leaders that used their legally own firearms at gunpoint to impose the infamous "Bayonet Constitution" of 1887. If you want to split hairs on this particular subject, why did you not mention this act committed by the same individuals who would later illegally overthrow Hawaii's last Queen, with the sole goal of annexation by the US?
It might be "difficult" for people to challenge the dictates of a dictator, much less challenge them successfully, as history has only too abundantly shown. More likely end up in a ditch somewhere.
I have no problem at all with you supporting dictators who arbitrarily throw out the rule of law when it suits them, and you. To each his own. But if someone makes an effort to have that system imposed upon me I will do what I can to stop that effort.
I understand from your previous post that you fail to understand that you are picking and choosing which "violations" of the law you selectively present that ought to be "corrected". In your one pet case you are adamant the the law was violated and must be followed to the letter, and in the other cases involving your history, you turn a completely blind eye to gross violations of the law with a wink and a nod that if the law-breaking dictator thought it was a good idea, then it must have been a good idea. :rofl:
I find your rationalization of the "king" violating the constitution by unilaterally throwing it out and replacing it illegally with his own new version that greatly consolidated his power as due to being "necessary to improve the lives of his subjects" to be disingenuous at best.
Of course one of those things "necessary to improve the lives of his subjects" was to make sure there was no right or law of any kind protecting what the U.S. Constitution recognized as the pre-existing natural human right to keep and bear arms.
Overthrew the constitution. Consolidated power for himself. Unilaterally "announced" the new constitution (as written by him). No provision for keeping and bearing arms. And for you: "I see no problem". I'm sure you'd use the same language if Trump did the same in the name of doing what's necessary to improve the lives of the country's citizens. Right? Yet, this "violation" over here... holy crap that's really really bad and we need to do something about it. I hope we don't get fooled again.
-
Let me rephrase the question: What will the criteria be, once the Hague (or whomever) has ruled and enforced the re-establishment of the "Hawaiian Kingdom" and ended the "illegal occupation" by the United States of America, that will establish that any particular individual will be eligible to exercise any rights, privileges or immunities, should there be any, in the "Hawaiian Kingdom"? (As in the United States of America the criteria is "citizenship".)
The criteria would be dictated by the governmental powers that would be in place. Not sure why you're asking me, unless you're asking me what I would do.
And I'm not sure why you're putting quotation marks around your words, as doing so doesn't change the fact that the US technically violated its own laws and constitution, and is therefore illegally occupying Hawaii, whether you choose to accept it or not.
Finally, The Hawaiian kingdom doesn't exist anymore; it was overthrown and replaced by the Republic of Hawai'i. And since the unconstitutional resolution that brought Hawaii into the US as a territory was made while Hawai'i was under control of the Republic, what technically still exists is the Republic of Hawai'i, just as the Republic of Texas technically still exists due to its attainment of statehood being in violation of the constitution.
-
The idea of a Republic of Hawaii actually sits a bit better with me since the whole point of a monarch is to pass down knowledge and experience to their progeny, and obviously that ship has sailed. Plus the royalty didn't seem to understand the danger of allowing foreigners to own land until it was too late, which calls into question how effective they really were to begin with when it came to seeing the big picture. That's the problem with monarchies, though. Historically it's actually fairly common for a gifted leader/warlord to have their hard work undone by less-qualified succeeding generations.
-
The idea of a Republic of Hawaii actually sits a bit better with me since the whole point of a monarch is to pass down knowledge and experience to their progeny, and obviously that ship has sailed. Plus the royalty didn't seem to understand the danger of allowing foreigners to own land until it was too late, which calls into question how effective they really were to begin with when it came to seeing the big picture. That's the problem with monarchies, though. Historically it's actually fairly common for a gifted leader/warlord to have their hard work undone by less-qualified succeeding generations.
The Great Mahele wasn't about allowing foreigners to own land; it was a failed attempt by Kauokeauoli to modernize land ownership for indigenous Hawaiians, secure lands for the monarchy and generate capital for the kingdom. The problem is that it backfired, and allowed immigrants, namely the missionaries and children of missionaries, to snag a ton of land and resources.
I do not support the Hawaiian kingdom, but I do support the idea of the Republic of Hawai'i, just as I support the idea of the Republic of Texas.
-
It might be "difficult" for people to challenge the dictates of a dictator, much less challenge them successfully, as history has only too abundantly shown. More likely end up in a ditch somewhere.
Any challenges to power will be met similarly whether in a kingdom or republic. Just ask what happened to all the enemies of former US PRESIDENT Bill Clinton and former US SECRETARY OF STATE Hillary Clinton.
I have no problem at all with you supporting dictators who arbitrarily throw out the rule of law when it suits them, and you. To each his own. But if someone makes an effort to have that system imposed upon me I will do what I can to stop that effort.
I guess I learned my lessons well from the number of dictators installed and empowered historically by the US Imperial Policy.
I understand from your previous post that you fail to understand that you are picking and choosing which "violations" of the law you selectively present that ought to be "corrected". In your one pet case you are adamant the the law was violated and must be followed to the letter, and in the other cases involving your history, you turn a completely blind eye to gross violations of the law with a wink and a nod that if the law-breaking dictator thought it was a good idea, then it must have been a good idea. :rofl:
You are guilty of the same per the examples I mentioned above.
I find your rationalization of the "king" violating the constitution by unilaterally throwing it out and replacing it illegally with his own new version that greatly consolidated his power as due to being "necessary to improve the lives of his subjects" to be disingenuous at best.
Had Kamehameha V really wanted to become a dictator, he should of dissolved the other branches of government within the Kingdom and become the Emperor like in Star Wars.
Of course one of those things "necessary to improve the lives of his subjects" was to make sure there was no right or law of any kind protecting what the U.S. Constitution recognized as the pre-existing natural human right to keep and bear arms.
There is no evidence to prove the contrary.
Overthrew the constitution. Consolidated power for himself. Unilaterally "announced" the new constitution (as written by him). No provision for keeping and bearing arms. And for you: "I see no problem". I'm sure you'd use the same language if Trump did the same in the name of doing what's necessary to improve the lives of the country's citizens. Right? Yet, this "violation" over here... holy crap that's really really bad and we need to do something about it. I hope we don't get fooled again.
You seem to comparing apples to oranges here. Hawaii was a constitutional monarchy, while the US is a constitutional republic. The dynamics of operating in both systems are totally different and not directly comparable.
-
LOL! Clinton is a proven liar who perjured himself under oath and is only the second President in US history to be impeached and tried in the Senate.
But, you go ahead and hang your hat on what Clinton told you. :rofl:
What does that have to do with anything? Are you suggesting he wasn't really sorry? The overthrow was illegal whether Clinton apologized or not.
-
What does that have to do with anything? Are you suggesting he wasn't really sorry? The overthrow was illegal whether Clinton apologized or not.
The overthrow was illegal to the kingdom of Hawaii and has nothing to do with the US government, as the ambassador was acting on his own accord, without the approval of Congress. The fact that the overthrow was initiated by Hawaiian nationals makes it a revolution, which is why I accept the fact that it is the Republic of Hawaii that exists, not the kingdom of Hawaii.
The annexation was illegal according to the US constitution, which is attempting to presented, explained and discussed with regards to the Hawaiian flag, (which is still the flag of the Republic of Hawaii) flying equally with the US flag. This has been attempted to be explained with facts and law numerous times, in order to demonstrate that because the annexation was illegal according to constitutional law, statehood is therefore illegal according to constitutional law, and the Republic of Hawaii remains the legitimate government of Hawaii, which justifies the idea ofthe Hawaiian flag flying independently and equally with, if not higher than the US flag.