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.

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?

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 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.

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. 

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.   

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.