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.

 

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.

 

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 

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". 

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.