+- Punaweb Forum (http://punaweb.org/forum)
+-- Forum: Punaweb Forums (http://punaweb.org/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: Punatalk (http://punaweb.org/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=10)
+--- Thread: State Judge rules Hawaiian Kingdom still exists (/showthread.php?tid=15764)
RE: State Judge rules Hawaiian Kingdom still exists - Wao nahele kane - 04-23-2015
Well, I have yet to see anywhere where the United States formally backed the Coup D'état and had they, the Queen certainly wouldn't have reached out to the POTUS to flesh out the criminal actions (which they did find) on behalf of one Stevens and a handful of other pecker head U.S. citizens. I see a Coup D'etat. I don't see the U.S. as formally backing it and the evidence proves otherwise. With many Coup D'états other nations citizens are involved. This Coup D'état sounds to me as if Dole himself was a major mastermind and had the most to gain out of anyone. He was a subject/citizen of the former Hawaiian Kingdom and the Hawaiian Kingdoms very own Benedict Arnold.
Don't think I haven't noticed the political down playing of the Kingdoms own subjects as THE major masterminds and players of the Coup D'état. That I noticed right off the bat, the near full ignorance of that fact and that it was an internal Hawaiian Affair complete with the Kingdoms own Benedict Arnolds. I see the new agenda of attempting to put the official blame on the US formally but it isn't sticking as far as I'm concerned nor does the evidence back it or the investigation.
Now go back to that time and consider the dilemma that places the US in. She (the Queen) was asking the U.S. to intervene in a successful Coup D'état that had a former Hawaiian Kingdom subject as it's President. This was very much an internal Hawaiian affair that was being formally requested of the United States to intervene within. Then the Spanish American War broke out... what became the US priority? An internal Hawaiian conflict or a War the U.S. was part of against Spain?
The U.S. was only bound to prosecute U.S. citizens who were responsible for the subversive acts should the U.S. elect to do so and that depending on another arsenal of legal issues. A can of political worms all around. The United States was not bound to arrest and prosecute former Hawaiian subjects who formed a coup and were then in charge of the new Republic of Hawaii.
I've not yet seen anything occur out of the ordinary regarding Coup D'états and I certainly don't see the U.S. as being formally responsible for the Coup. Coup D'états happen and they result in internationally recognized nations. This was a Hawaiian internal Affair by a citizen of the former Kingdom who leveraged his former Kingdom into becoming a territory of U.S. through his interim Republic of Hawaii goal. See it for what it was and stop trying to place the official narrative blame on the U.S., it was the Kingdoms own people involved in it and presiding over it.
RE: State Judge rules Hawaiian Kingdom still exists - ironyak - 04-23-2015
Kane - how do you interpret the Apology Resolution then, signed in 1993? Why would this exist if it was just an internal Hawaii Kingdom matter?
RE: State Judge rules Hawaiian Kingdom still exists - ironyak - 04-23-2015
Originally posted by Kaimana
Thank you for having an actual conversation about the actual points I've said. Honestly this is awesome. I'm on my phone right now and kind of busy so I can't answer most of your points but as for the Republic of Hawaii's treaty, it was never ratified by the US.
No worries and no rush on my part - I appreciate having a chance to converse and ask questions to see how various pieces fit together. Not that I agree with all the ideas, but never hurts to have a better understanding. Thanks for making the time and effort!
RE: State Judge rules Hawaiian Kingdom still exists - Wao nahele kane - 04-23-2015
I would interpret it as an apology by the United States for the actions of it's appointed representative assisting in the Coup D'état and for not helping to rectify the situation thereafter. Unfortunately due to the timing of the Spanish American war and then the political climate the help never came. It wasn't a mandatory obligation but it was an obligation of integrity. Of which our former representatives failed the Kingdom over.
Unfortunately the global instability lead to further issues and strategic locations was one at the top of the list. The Kingdoms peril was sealed by a series of global events. So I see this as the reason for the apology. I don't see it as a... Sorry, we'll get the Kingdom back to you soon. I see it as official acknowledgment and apology of the United States failure to assist one of it's former friends in the capacity its friend needed help.
Now the question is, what next? It's pretty clear to me that the claims are bogus with regard to a formal U.S. coup or that the U.S. is officially responsible for the situation. I think the supporters of the Kingdom need to acknowledge their own Benedict Arnolds and address the issue properly and stop trying to place the blame on the USA.
RE: State Judge rules Hawaiian Kingdom still exists - Wao nahele kane - 04-23-2015
Reading about these two clarifies a great deal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanford_B._Dole
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_L._Stevens
ETA... this is another one worth reading about. There are many other Hawaiian citizens involved too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorrin_A._Thurston
RE: State Judge rules Hawaiian Kingdom still exists - Kaimana - 04-24-2015
quote:
Originally posted by ironyak
Originally posted by Kaimana
She temporarily gave her executive power to the president, not her title.(President Cleveland. After the investigation of the overthrow.)
But the overthrow was on Jan 17 1893, and Cleveland didn't become president until March 4, 1893. How was this grant of executive authority achieved?
ironyak - Are you saying that only Mexico could grant sovereignty?
kaimana - Yes since they never relinquished it.
So under this interpretation, who would have grant sovereignty? Only the Kingdom of Hawaii via treaty? (The Republic of Hawaii had a Treaty of annexation of course)
How many of those agreements involved the sovereignty of another nation? That is a special case in which a treaty must signed by both nations involved. Again, a joint-resolution is a congressional act which doesn't extend beyond the territory of the US.
This sounds like a rehash of the same argument previously heard in 1898 in which the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, the US Congress, and the US President all disagreed with that limited interpretation. But of course it doesn't matter what they, you, me, Dr Sai, or Dr Conklin believe - the only opinion that matters is the US Supreme Court in deciding what is constitutional.
This opinion they made clear in Hawaii v Mankichi (1903) in which Justice Harlan supported the majority that in the treaty by joint resolution "the annexation of the Hawaiian islands became complete, and the object of the proposed treaty, that 'those islands should be incorporated into the United States as an integral part thereof, and under its sovereignty,' was accomplished."
Since that time, courts have largely avoided hearing cases on the matter or set aside the issue (Hawaii Supreme Court - State v. Armitage (2014) - "Defendants have failed to prove that the Reinstated Nation of Hawaii is a sovereign native Hawaiian entity and the [c]ourt lacks authority to make such a determination ").
So - how does the Judicial Notice in the Maui Circuit Court factor into changing this?
ETF: clarity regarding courts
1. Ok from what I've read so far the Republic Of Hawaii never "arrested" or forced the Queen to sign anything until 1895. Before that they just had taken over the palace and claimed to be the new government of the nation. So she had actually given her power to the POTUS before being forced to sign it over to the republic. But legally she no longer had any power so she signed nothing over to the republic.
2. Whoever was the rightful government representing the sovereign nation of Hawaii would be the only one who could give up that sovereignty. So either the Kingdom of Hawaii or the Republic of Hawaii, depending on who you believe was the legal government. But even the Republic DID NOT have a ratified treaty with the US. The Republic had offered a treaty but it did not pass in the US Senate, therefor the treaty was dead. Congress then decided to accept the agreement with a joint-resolution. But that is not the same as a ratified treaty between two nations, it's a law within one nation.
3. From what I've read is that during the Mankichi case there was an injunction to seal the transcripts of the Senate from when they were forming the Newlands joint resolution in closed sessions. Now with the freedom of information act we have an account of what the discussion was when they were forming the bill and it reveals that the intent of the Senate was to utilize the President’s war powers and not congressional authority to annex. Which would make what they did an occupation not an annexation.
And the importance of the Maui Circuit Court judicial notice is that it is the first time that a judge has found it irrefutably true that the Kingdom of Hawaii does still exist today. Before this the judgment has always been that the burden of proof was not met by the defendant, but that did not mean that the Kingdom did not exist, only that the defendant did not have enough evidence to prove it did. With this judgment it now puts the burden on the Courts/State to prove it doesn't exist which is going to be a lot harder given all the new evidence.
Again thank you for the discussion. I really do appreciate it.
RE: State Judge rules Hawaiian Kingdom still exists - ironyak - 04-24-2015
Originally posted by Wao nahele kane
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanford_B._Dole
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_L._Stevens
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorrin_A._Thurston
The obvious addition is "Hawaii's Story by Hawaii's Queen" by Liliuokalani which can be read in its entirety here:
http://digital.library.upenn.edu/women/liliuokalani/hawaii/hawaii.html
I find biographies quite engaging as they bring world-changing events down to the scale of individual people with all their unique qualities and flaws.
The idea of the overthrow in 1893 as a internal coup is not without merit. The trouble of course is the landing of US Marines at the instruction of US Envoy Stevens that played a direct role in the Queen's yielding of her authority.
Given Steven's belief in manifest destiny and his letter shortly after the overthrow that "The Hawaiian pear is now fully ripe, and this is the golden hour for the United States to pluck it.", it is difficult to minimize the US involvement IMHO.
http://libweb.hawaii.edu/digicoll/annexation/blount/br0402.html
RE: State Judge rules Hawaiian Kingdom still exists - JohnDW - 04-24-2015
Hawaii is, and has been for some time now, a strategic military base; the Gibraltar of the Pacific. Not only does the Fifth Fleet reside here, but it also uses these facilities to train our allies All the hair-splitting and the interpretation is pointless in light of that fact. It's unthinkable that the US Military would allow the State of Hawaii to fall into hostile hands.
http://www.csp.navy.mil/content/comsubpac_subsquadrons.shtml
Un Mojado Sin Licencia
RE: State Judge rules Hawaiian Kingdom still exists - kalakoa - 04-25-2015
It's unthinkable that the US Military would allow the State of Hawaii to fall into hostile hands.
I assume the "foreign" is implied here; current State/County government is pretty hostile to business and low-income owner-builders...
RE: State Judge rules Hawaiian Kingdom still exists - Kapoho Joe - 04-25-2015
quote:
Originally posted by JohnDW
Hawaii is, and has been for some time now, a strategic military base; the Gibraltar of the Pacific. Not only does the Fifth Fleet reside here, but it also uses these facilities to train our allies All the hair-splitting and the interpretation is pointless in light of that fact. It's unthinkable that the US Military would allow the State of Hawaii to fall into hostile hands.
http://www.csp.navy.mil/content/comsubpac_subsquadrons.shtml
Un Mojado Sin Licencia
never gonna give you up
never gonna let you go