State Judge rules Hawaiian Kingdom still exists

[Wao nahele kane]

Here's an idea:

Let's explore the meaning of the word annexation and see if it's applicable to Hawaii's absorption into the U.S.

"Annexation, a formal act whereby a state proclaims its sovereignty over territory hitherto outside its domain. Unlike cession, whereby territory is given or sold through treaty, annexation is a unilateral act made effective by actual possession and legitimized by general recognition.

Annexation is frequently preceded by conquest and military occupation of the conquered territory. Occasionally, as in the German annexation of Austria in 1938, a conquest may be accomplished by the threat of force without active hostilities. Military occupation does not constitute or necessarily lead to annexation. Thus, for instance, the Allied military occupation of Germany after the cessation of hostilities in World War II was not followed by annexation. When military occupation results in annexation, an official announcement is normal, to the effect that the sovereign authority of the annexing state has been established and will be maintained in the future. Israel made such a declaration when it annexed the Golan Heights in 1981. The subsequent recognition of annexation by other states may be explicit or implied. Annexation based on the illegal use of force is condemned in the Charter of the United Nations.

Conditions may exist which obviate the necessity for conquest prior to annexation. In 1910, for example, Japan converted its protectorate of Korea into an annexed colony by means of proclamation. Preceding its annexation of the Svalbard Islands in 1925, Norway eliminated its competitors by means of a treaty in which they agreed to Norwegian possession of the islands. Annexation of Hawaii by the United States in the late 19th century was a peaceful process, based upon the willing acceptance by the Hawaiian government of U.S. authority.

The formalities of annexation are not defined by international law; whether it be done by one authority or another within a state is a matter of constitutional law. The Italian annexation of Ethiopia in 1936 was accomplished by a decree issued by the king of Italy. Joint resolutions of Congress were the means by which the United States annexed Texas in 1845 and Hawaii in 1898.

From: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topi...annexation

[flyingsurfer]

What made it legal for King Kamehameha's ancestors to bring there g-ds. tabus, of war,slavery,and human sacrifices among others? And force it on the Hawaiians that were here first. That were a peaceful people.
What gave King Kamehameha the legal right to conquer the island of Hawaii. Then the outer Islands? They did not want that.

[Kaimana]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wao nahele kane

Here's an idea:

Let's explore the meaning of the word annexation and see if it's applicable to Hawaii's absorption into the U.S.

"Annexation, a formal act whereby a state proclaims its sovereignty over territory hitherto outside its domain. Unlike cession, whereby territory is given or sold through treaty, annexation is a unilateral act made effective by actual possession and legitimized by general recognition.

Annexation is frequently preceded by conquest and military occupation of the conquered territory. Occasionally, as in the German annexation of Austria in 1938, a conquest may be accomplished by the threat of force without active hostilities. Military occupation does not constitute or necessarily lead to annexation. Thus, for instance, the Allied military occupation of Germany after the cessation of hostilities in World War II was not followed by annexation. When military occupation results in annexation, an official announcement is normal, to the effect that the sovereign authority of the annexing state has been established and will be maintained in the future. Israel made such a declaration when it annexed the Golan Heights in 1981. The subsequent recognition of annexation by other states may be explicit or implied. Annexation based on the illegal use of force is condemned in the Charter of the United Nations.

Conditions may exist which obviate the necessity for conquest prior to annexation. In 1910, for example, Japan converted its protectorate of Korea into an annexed colony by means of proclamation. Preceding its annexation of the Svalbard Islands in 1925, Norway eliminated its competitors by means of a treaty in which they agreed to Norwegian possession of the islands. Annexation of Hawaii by the United States in the late 19th century was a peaceful process, based upon the willing acceptance by the Hawaiian government of U.S. authority.

The formalities of annexation are not defined by international law; whether it be done by one authority or another within a state is a matter of constitutional law. The Italian annexation of Ethiopia in 1936 was accomplished by a decree issued by the king of Italy. Joint resolutions of Congress were the means by which the United States annexed Texas in 1845 and Hawaii in 1898.

From: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topi...annexation

---

A few things I'd like to say. 1. The US has the constitution outlining the powers of congress and annexing territory is not one of them. 2. Edit-In Texas' case there is a ratified treaty of annexation that was signed after the fact giving the US sovereignty of the land from Mexico.

quote:

---

Originally posted by flyingsurfer

What made it legal for King Kamehameha's ancestors to bring there g-ds. tabus, of war,slavery,and human sacrifices among others? And force it on the Hawaiians that were here first. That were a peaceful people.
What gave King Kamehameha the legal right to conquer the island of Hawaii. Then the outer Islands? They did not want that.

---

There were no laws against it at the time and they were not a recognized nation. Also there was no outside nation backing one side or the other.

[HereOnThePrimalEdge]

It's extremely difficult for small nations to operate independently in the world today.

Marshall Islands cargo ship seized by Iran. US will intervene:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/ap...cargo-ship

[MarkP]

You would think that a nation that had been overthrown would be justified in feeling wronged. I acknowledge the wrongness of the overthrow and yet I object to the tone of righteous indignation because it implies that everything would have been OK if the US had only kept their hands off, and that Hawaii would not have experienced any other form of forced capitulation. If anyone today takes this stance I literally think they are knowingly selling snake oil. Japan would have taken Hawaii in WWII if not any of several other nations much, much sooner. Even in the comparatively civilized modern environment an independent Hawaii would soon find itself with a "friend" who came to visit and forgot to leave.

[Wao nahele kane]

Kaimana,

"A few things I'd like to say. 1. The US has the constitution outlining the powers of congress and annexing territory is not one of them. 2. Edit-In Texas' case there is a ratified treaty of annexation that was signed after the fact giving the US sovereignty of the land from Mexico."

Article 4 Section 3:

New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

Section 4.

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.

[Wao nahele kane]

Kaimana,

To further drive home the point that Hawaii was legally annexed as a territory and later admitted to the union as a State, re-read this section of the article closely.
"and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State."

[Kaimana]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wao nahele kane

Kaimana,

"A few things I'd like to say. 1. The US has the constitution outlining the powers of congress and annexing territory is not one of them. 2. Edit-In Texas' case there is a ratified treaty of annexation that was signed after the fact giving the US sovereignty of the land from Mexico."

Article 4 Section 3:

New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

Section 4.

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.

---

All that is only applicable once a Nation gives up it's sovereignty via treaty of annexation or cession. Neither of which took place in Hawaii's case. Again Congress only has power within the US and cannot reach beyond it. "The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States"



Also the Statehood vote was illegal not only because there was no treaty of annexation or cession but also per international law. The vote is supposed to include independence as an option.

[Wao nahele kane]

It's directly applicable,

"without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress."

The treaty for annexation that went before the Republic of Hawaii was passed in 1897.
The POTUS put forward the same treaty for annexation in 1897 which was submitted to the Senate.
It was not initially approved by the Senate but the treaty was not withdrawn by the Republic of Hawaii thus was still held by the Senate administratively.

A few months passed and the treaty of annexation was re-introduced by being placed into a joint resolution bill that was put before Congress in 1898. The "joint resolution" bill was passed by Congress with a 2/3 approval in both the House and Senate.

The details are not clear of how it was ratified (ceremonial act) but it was probably ratified by both parties (U.S. and Republic of Hawaii) in 1900 as it wasn't enacted until 1900. In any case, the exact methodology is irrelevant as there are no international laws that detail how treaties of annexation must be executed because it is left to the States involved as to how they themselves decide how to mutually agree upon the process. There is no one set of ways or reasons that are right or wrong. In such cases, it's a private contract between two sovereign powers.


Are you confusing State as in a State like Vermont?
States are also considered different types of territories and foreign nations.

[Wao nahele kane]

The Constitution leaves it up to Congress on how they wish to pursue and define acceptances into the union based upon the prerequisites set forth in section 3 but all that are joined into the union are guaranteed the representation and protections found under section 4.