https://www.khon2.com/local-news/should-foreigners-be-banned-from-purchasing-land-in-hawaii/

The AG said they have grave concerns regarding the constitutionality and legality of the bill and that as written, it could subject the State to litigation and substantial monetary liability.

Real Estate developer, Peter Savio, supports the bill. He said it does not matter if it’s unconstitutional.

“The issue is, it’s identifying the problem. It’s forcing people to face what they’ve wanted to deny for the last 60 years, that it’s outside demand that’s destroying Hawaii, and we have to control it,” Savio said.

If the bill is passed, it would also require any foreign entity or foreign person that owns land to register.

Awa said it’s about standing up for the people and future of Hawaii.

“So argue the unconstitutionality all you want, this is the right thing to do,” Awa stated.



Now we know why they continue to stomp on our rights

The AG has zeroncredibility about whats constitutional.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

Interesting.

Why would it be unconstitutional though? Foreigners are prohibited from doing certain other constitutionally protected activities, I cannot think what would be unconstitutional about this law off the top of my head.

https://www.khon2.com/local-news/should-foreigners-be-banned-from-purchasing-land-in-hawaii/

The AG said they have grave concerns regarding the constitutionality and legality of the bill and that as written, it could subject the State to litigation and substantial monetary liability.

Real Estate developer, Peter Savio, supports the bill. He said it does not matter if it’s unconstitutional.

“The issue is, it’s identifying the problem. It’s forcing people to face what they’ve wanted to deny for the last 60 years, that it’s outside demand that’s destroying Hawaii, and we have to control it,” Savio said.

If the bill is passed, it would also require any foreign entity or foreign person that owns land to register.

Awa said it’s about standing up for the people and future of Hawaii.

“So argue the unconstitutionality all you want, this is the right thing to do,” Awa stated.



Now we know why they continue to stomp on our rights

What is unconstitutional about preventing non-US citizens from buying homes and land in the U.S., exactly?

What is unconstitutional about preventing non-US citizens from buying homes and land in the U.S., exactly?

The Equal Protection Clause is part of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment
to the United States Constitution. The clause, which took effect in 1868, provides "nor
shall any State ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
It mandates that individuals in similar situations be treated equally by the law

Jurisdiction is all that's required.  There's no provision that the individual be a citizen, legal resident, etc.

Florida has had a similar law. since May and it hasn't been shot down yet.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/19/politics/chinese-land-purchases/index.html

Florida has had a similar law. since May and it hasn't been shot down yet.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/19/politics/chinese-land-purchases/index.html

... yet. 

Democrats pass laws even though they know the law is unconstitutional.
They also know it is expensive and takes forever to go through the courts.
I've always said you don't need an Army to conquer the USA since we will sell it to you.
Besides the Federal government unconstitutionally is the country's biggest landowner,
and nobody but me complains about that.  As far as I'm concerned the Federal
government today is a Foreigner to America.
They are Dermocrats.
I'm an American.
 

Not the law that concerns me but the blatant disregard of the Constitution.

Awa is a solid 2A supporter.  He sits on the committee that hears 2A bills in the senate (Rhodes committee) and votes no all the time against these bills.

The left in HI has shown it's disregard for peoples constitutional rights for decades.  So why all the complaining now?  I have yet to see the AG state a anti 2a bill is unconstitutional.  But instead they say things like "we worked very hard to make sure Bruen is followed", such BS.

China has our government in their pocket and since 90% of our lawmakers vote to support anti 2a bills, they also better support this if it's solely about the constitution.

BTW, the bill is dead. It's deadline to schedule a hearing was on 2/5.

Awa is a solid 2A supporter.  He sits on the committee that hears 2A bills in the senate (Rhodes committee) and votes no all the time against these bills.

The left in HI has shown it's disregard for peoples constitutional rights for decades.  So why all the complaining now?  I have yet to see the AG state a anti 2a bill is unconstitutional.  But instead they say things like "we worked very hard to make sure Bruen is followed", such BS.

China has our government in their pocket and since 90% of our lawmakers vote to support anti 2a bills, they also better support this if it's solely about the constitution.

Again it's the blatant disregrad for the Constitution. Besides the issue is not with foreign investors in our housing market its our regulations and supply. We are on a rock. When I was in the market, I wasn't competing against foreign bidders but local buyers.

Again it's the blatant disregrad for the Constitution. Besides the issue is not with foreign investors in our housing market its our regulations and supply. We are on a rock. When I was in the market, I wasn't competing against foreign bidders but local buyers.

Depends on the area. I live in Kakaako and talk to the realtors in the area.  Many of the Howard Hughes multi million condo units are unoccupied as the owners don't live in HI.  Combo of mainland and foreign buyers.  1 guy who ran a gelato shop said the same thing because he thought his location would be busier with all the condo's, but nope, empty condo units.

So we need to go back and HH built the condo's with these types of non-residents in mind, as the average HI person cannot afford a $4 million condo.  So if instead HH built a non-luxury condo, then more average people might be able to buy it.  But then would HH even bother?  The deal he made with the city to get approved for his million dollar condo's was he had to build Ke Kilohana for the people (affordable housing project).  Have almost 400 units of all affordable and you get your permit to build all your other luxury condos.  Ke Kilohana does have it's share of problems as HH went super cheap on this one and the states "affordable" program isn't.  Anyone who qualified 8 years ago would be living paycheck to paycheck going "mortgage broke".  And todays "affordable" program is even worst. At least back then, once you qualified, you were grandfathered in, even if you made more 5 years later when the building was finished. Today, you cannot make that much more, so the state changed it. Which means you have to turn down good promotions or careers in order to stay qualified (Kuilei Place is the most current one).

The reason why the property on Kapiolani and Atkinson is still stalled is because it's supposed to be a 400 unit condo with only 17 "affordable" units for the people. The city denied their building permit and said make more. So they increased to 40 units for the people. City said try again. So they went to 80 and the city still said no. Then they went to 100 something and still no.  Apparently, .they never paid the right people.

So Flapp posted about the 14th, but how does it apply or even close to allowing foreign citizens to buy land?  Or is there another federal code that prohibits this type of ban?  I mean, foreign people cannot buy guns, so no 2a right.  Are they subject to a fair and speedy trial (as in would they just get deported instead?).  I'm sure they do have the 1A right, but how often does HPD check before arresting someone for exercising their 1A if they're foreign or not? Same with the 4th (search and seizure), etc...

This is 1 topic which I never looked into, so I honestly don't know. But what I do know is our government often violates the constitution annually, so what's 1 more time?

Buildings are more expensive to maintain than a house. Residents need an elevator, fire sprinklers, common areas such as stairways, lighting etc. Concrete isn't cheap nor is it "environmental". Making a bldg affordable is an oxymoron. In addition, the City Council could have denied all these zoning exemptions and changes. Taking steps back and looking at the entire picture we don't have a robust economy to support these housing prices with a reasonable lifestyle for the average middle class.
But it is no excuse for a person in office to make a statement like that. It deteriorates that person's trust. Peter Savio stated that "we" must control it. Who is "we"? Shall we have a commission that review each real estate transaction? Do we really think a realtor would turn away a foreign buyer with cash? They could have but apparently they didn't.

Buildings are more expensive to maintain than a house. Residents need an elevator, fire sprinklers, common areas such as stairways, lighting etc. Concrete isn't cheap nor is it "environmental". Making a bldg affordable is an oxymoron. In addition, the City Council could have denied all these zoning exemptions and changes. Taking steps back and looking at the entire picture we don't have a robust economy to support these housing prices with a reasonable lifestyle for the average middle class.
But it is no excuse for a person in office to make a statement like that. It deteriorates that person's trust. Peter Savio stated that "we" must control it. Who is "we"? Shall we have a commission that review each real estate transaction? Do we really think a realtor would turn away a foreign buyer with cash? They could have but apparently they didn't.

Can you elaborate more which part of the constitution is being violated?  I am curious to know as based on the rights that I know about, I don't see that it does. 

Can you elaborate more which part of the constitution is being violated?  I am curious to know as based on the rights that I know about, I don't see that it does.

Don't derail the thread like your fishy friend.
I'm not addressing that at all, my point was a public servant stated that he doesn't care about the Constitution. Pro 2a or not I find that concerning.

OATH OF OFFICE

      Section 4.  All eligible public officers, before entering upon the duties of their respective offices, shall take and subscribe to the following oath or affirmation:  "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of the State of Hawaii, and that I will faithfully discharge my duties as ........................ to the best of my ability."  As used in this section, "eligible public officers" means the governor, the lieutenant governor, the members of both houses of the legislature, the members of the board of education, the members of the national guard, State or county employees who possess police powers, district court judges, and all those whose appointment requires the consent of the senate. [Ren and am Const Con 1978 and election Nov 7, 1978; am SB 1440 (1992) and election Nov 3, 1992]

Don't derail the thread like your fishy friend.
I'm not addressing that at all, my point was a public servant stated that he doesn't care about the Constitution. Pro 2a or not I find that concerning.

OATH OF OFFICE

      Section 4.  All eligible public officers, before entering upon the duties of their respective offices, shall take and subscribe to the following oath or affirmation:  "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of the State of Hawaii, and that I will faithfully discharge my duties as ........................ to the best of my ability."  As used in this section, "eligible public officers" means the governor, the lieutenant governor, the members of both houses of the legislature, the members of the board of education, the members of the national guard, State or county employees who possess police powers, district court judges, and all those whose appointment requires the consent of the senate. [Ren and am Const Con 1978 and election Nov 7, 1978; am SB 1440 (1992) and election Nov 3, 1992]

Is it derailing?

I'm asking what part of the constitution.  With knowing what I know as of now, I think the AG is just stating it's "unconstitutional" to kill the bill.  Unless someone here can show otherwise with more detail as I don't see how the 14th applies.  The reason why I say the AG is full of it is because they have yet to use the word "unconstitutional" during any anti 2a bill. They do use the phrase "this is constitutional" or "this can with stand a constitutional test" and like phrases all the time for anti 2a bills.

I'm asking for your help or Flapps to elaborate more cause I don't understand.

BTW, I'm also against the government getting more involved with anything as I prefer a more libertarian approach.  I'm just trying to understand why this bill is unconstitutional.  I have yet to make an opinion for or against this bill until I understand if the AG has a good point as I don't trust them.

As for him stating he doesn't care about the constitution, I talked to him over the phone a few times last year and he said he does care about it.  He also said phrases like "automatic no vote, it's unconstitutional" when I asked about certain 2a bills.

So I'm wondering if he was in the heat of the moment and using a word that the AG was throwing out there (constitution/unconstitutional).  Then there's the say 1 thing like how Trump said "take the guns first, due process later", but action wise, nothing.  So Awa made that statement, but if the bill is constitutional, then the statement is more moot.  But if it isn't constitutional, then this could be 1 strike against Awa.

Since this is your thread, if you still feel this post is derailing, I won't ask for clarification again and just drop it.  I will respect your thread as the OP.

Don't derail the thread like your fishy friend.
I'm not addressing that at all, my point was a public servant stated that he doesn't care about the constitution.  Pro 2a or not I find that concerning.

OATH OF OFFICE

      Section 4.  All eligible public officers, before entering upon the duties of their respective offices, shall take and subscribe to the following oath or affirmation:  "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of the State of Hawaii, and that I will faithfully discharge my duties as ........................ to the best of my ability."  As used in this section, "eligible public officers" means the governor, the lieutenant governor, the members of both houses of the legislature, the members of the board of education, the members of the national guard, State or county employees who possess police powers, district court judges, and all those whose appointment requires the consent of the senate. [Ren and am Const Con 1978 and election Nov 7, 1978; am SB 1440 (1992) and election Nov 3, 1992]

not taking their oath of office seriously makes them madahfackahs in my mind.

Testimony from the AG

"The Department has grave concerns regarding the constitutionality and legality of
this bill and the potential for this bill, as written, to subject the State to litigation and to
cause the State to incur substantial monetary liability. Among other things, the
Department has concerns grounded in the Commerce Clause of article I, section 8,
clause 3, of the U.S. Constitution; the Equal Protection clauses of the Fourteenth
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and article I, section 5, of the Hawaii Constitution;
the Takings clauses of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and article I,
section 20, of the Hawaii Constitution; the Due Process clauses of the Fourteenth
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and article I, section 5, of the Hawaii Constitution;
article I, section 2 of the Hawaii Constitution; and the federal Fair Housing Act. Many of
these provisions, among other things, would require the State to satisfy onerous meansends legal analyses in litigation and potentially require the State to pay fair market value
for the taking of property to an unknown number of individuals and entities."

Sounds more like they don't want to take the time to litigate any offenders.  Again, anti 2a bills, are all constitutional according to the AG.

Not much testimony, but those with a financial interest opposed this bill, like the Hawaii Realtor Association and the Commercial Real Estate Development Association.

The HI realtors did mention this violates the Fair Housing Act, which one cannot discriminate based on national origin. FHA is not part of the constitution.

We apply similar things, when I was in banking, we were not allowed to do any business with Iran, Iraq, Cuba, and North Korea as a whole (people included) as it was on some federal law.  We even had a sign we posted in the back about it.  So how's this any different?

Again, based on very initial/limited research, it sounds like outside money is being used to kill this bill.