Posts: 2,381
Threads: 125
Joined: Jun 2009
The US federal government does not have the power to establish an Independent Hawaiian Nation within the State of Hawaii.
The State of Hawaii does not have the power to establish an Independent Hawaiian Nation in the State of Hawaii.
Their combined mutual powers are limited to the establishment of a Hawaiian Reservation that would be managed by a Hawaiian Government under the U.S. Department of the Interiors designated Bureau yet to be established though currently under the Office of Hawaiian Affairs. Such a Hawaiian government would still be subject to many federal agencies oversight such as CPS and so forth.
There's also a matter of the ceded lands from a legal aspect as the SCOTUS scuttled any notion that they don't belong to the State of Hawaii. SO in that case, the lands have been legally defined as belonging to the citizens of the State of Hawaii and therefore compensation will need to be made to the current citizens of the State of Hawaii for giving the lands to the Native Hawaiians. Yeah, that sounds absurd but that's where it sits.
Please note... I'm only pointing out the road blocks under the Constitutional realities in this matter.
As per an Independent Hawaiian Nation/Kingdom - Not even the International Courts or World pressure could make the Congress, Executive or State overstep their powers on this matter. The whole US would be up in arms. Thus the notion of an Independent Sovereign Hawaiian Nation is nothing more than a pipe dream.
There is only one legal course for such an event to take place and that would require a Constitutional Amendment to allow such a venture to take place. So... to make it happen would require far more than just some good old fashioned unity amongst native Hawaiians, it would also require Amendment ratification by 3/4 of the US States.
Therein sits the meat of the dilemma. It's like a Donkey stuck atop a barbed wire fence.
What bothers me most are those who are running around raising the hopes of many natives without considering the vast roadblocks that make it impossible except through Constitutional Amendment. That isn't cool IMO. Consider the realities of the situation before getting people all hot and bothered over such a notion.
Posts: 2,381
Threads: 125
Joined: Jun 2009
With the above in mind and considering the desires to establish an Independent Hawaiian Nation while simultaneously protesting the TMT... what are the chances of seeing 3/4 of the US States ratifying a Constitutional Amendment to make that pipe dream happen? They might as well be flushing the toilet while simultaneously asking to save the water they are flushing into a cesspool.
Posts: 2,381
Threads: 125
Joined: Jun 2009
I think where the Federal Government made a mistake was not sticking to the pre contact protocol of which it used to determine Native Status qualifications. Then they came to the table with a reservation based on a single government to government consideration and that was not the situation pre contact, that was the situation as a Kingdom post contact Western influence derived.
So - going back to the table with an X year open window offer of subdivided multiple offers to the individual Islands and applicable sub regions each with offerings of separate Reservations accompanied by its own separate Government might get things rolling. Somewhere one group would accept and that would perhaps create the forward momentum pressure to act while available as others had done. Any group that failed to lay claim within the X year claim window would face permanent loss of claim. Also adding to that as the number of people per claim would determine the net size of the reservation established. Just a thought.
Posts: 1,930
Threads: 71
Joined: Jun 2012
quote:
Originally posted by Wao nahele kane
The US federal government does not have the power to establish an Independent Hawaiian Nation within the State of Hawaii.
You are crazy or just making things up, which is quite common on PW. This is the usual MO around here, ask a question about something you have already have a fixate answer for.
Article 6 of the US Constitution:
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof;
and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the
supreme Law of the Land"
http://www.ncai.org/about-tribes
The mistake was labeling it tribal nations but that is the way the US federal government operates, being racist while vehemently denying racism. It is the Republicans that took this and twisted it around that the US federal government is trying to call the Hawaiians an Indian tribe. This is just plain evil misinformation. The Akaka bill is to recognize the native Hawaiians of 50% or more bloodline as a sovereign nation, yes a tribal nation label, but not in any way a Native American tribe.
The rest of the babbling makes no sense without recognition of the above and if you didn't have a fixated answer before asking the question.
"Aloha also means goodbye. Aloha!"
*Japanese tourist on bus through Pahoa, "Is this still America?*
Posts: 10,240
Threads: 345
Joined: Apr 2009
"You are crazy or just making things up, which is quite common on PW."
Anyone know where one can buy a good quality irony meter in Puna? For some reason mine gave a reality loop logic error and then exploded.
Posts: 2,381
Threads: 125
Joined: Jun 2009
Pahoated,
It would appear that you're either not comprehending what was written or you don't understand what you've expressed. Note the word "Native" used in both versions?
"The US federal government does not have the power to establish an Independent Hawaiian Nation within the State of Hawaii."
That is a fact pursuant to the U.S. Constitution and federal law.
Independent Hawaiian Nation means a Nation exercising its Sovereignty independently in matters of international trade, conflict etc. and all matters within its interior without foreign interference.
In the United States there is something called "Domestic Sovereignty" and no place in the United States is there a "Foreign Sovereignty" beyond the scope of foreign Consulates. The "Sovereign Nation" you note is one of "Domestic Sovereignty" similar to that of a "State" but limited by Congressional approvals for treaties domestically. Domestic Sovereignty has limitations under it's Supreme Sovereignty (The United States).
So... when we discuss a potential Hawaiian Nation within the context of the proposed forms of the Akaka Bill they are pursuant to recognizing "Domestic Sovereignty".
Posts: 2,381
Threads: 125
Joined: Jun 2009
When Hawaii was a territory it was not part of the United States of America. At that time within the Territory of Hawaii, the Federal Government could have helped form a Full Sovereign Hawaiian Nation using ceded lands. Today, it's a different situation because Hawaii is a State of the United States and all parts of Hawaii are part of the United States.
Note how the "United States of America" became the "United States".
The United States cannot whimsically give part of itself away by Federal act. That is a matter for the whole of the Union to decide.
That is another fact.
The United States can through treaty discard its territorial holdings but Hawaii is no longer a territorial holding.
Posts: 14,116
Threads: 424
Joined: Aug 2012
The United States cannot whimsically give part of itself away by Federal act.
The US government will make up whatever rules they need, if they really want to.
They don't want to.
Posts: 2,381
Threads: 125
Joined: Jun 2009
Kalakoa,
LOL... Well the Union is a jealous bitch, thus the Federal Government would be wise not to piss her off by overstepping its Constitutional powers to such magnitude.
Posts: 2,381
Threads: 125
Joined: Jun 2009
Pahoated,
You indicated that the Republicans have twisted the Akaka bill around.
I present to you the words of Senator Akaka (Democrat) himself on the Senate floor regarding the matters of his bill (The Akaka Bill).
"The legislation I introduce today seeks to build upon the foundation of reconciliation. It provides a structured process to bring together the people of Hawai`i, along a path of healing to a Hawai`i where its indigenous people are respected and culture is embraced. Through enactment of this legislation, we have the opportunity to demonstrate that our country does not just preach its ideas, but lives according to its founding principles. As it has for America's other indigenous peoples, I believe the United States must fulfill its responsibility to Native Hawaiians."
I've tried to make sense of your previous statements and re-reviewed those things I've already read to make sure I wasn't missing anything. I've yet to figure out where you've derived your information.
As per Senator Akaka's statement -
What part of that is not clear or twisted by a Republican? Have you even read the Akaka bill? Also keep in mind that the Aka Bill has never passed the Senate since its introduction to Congress in 2000.
