Posts: 363
Threads: 1
Joined: Apr 2015
quote:
Originally posted by MarkP
Better get all sovereignty activists to read it first. A huge percentage of them seem to think that the monarchy either never was formally dissolved or should be reinstated because the overthrow was illegal. It is one of the foundations of the Hawaiian sovereignty movement and to dispute that is disingenuous.
Dr. deZayas, UN Expert, can read and agrees that the US is occupying the Hawaiian Kingdom.
https://ibb.co/cNrh07C
https://ibb.co/G0bLs60
The 1988 the US Office of Legal Counsel did not know where the power to annex Hawaii came from. I'm sure they can read.
55th Cong., 2d Sess. 1 (1898). This argument, however, neglected one significant nuance: Hawaii was not being acquired as a state. Because the joint resolution annexing Texas relied on Congress’ power to admit new states, “the
method of annexing Texas did not constitute a proper precedent for the annexation of a land and people to be retained as a possession or in a territorial condition
President Clinton's Apology Resolution
"acknowledges that the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii occurred with the active participation of agents and citizens of the United States and further acknowledges that the Native Hawaiian people never directly relinquished to the United States their claims to their inherent sovereignty as a people over their national lands, either through the Kingdom of Hawaii or through a plebiscite or referendum"
These are the main points that most people have now about why the Hawaiian Kingdom should be reinstated. Anything that happened after the occupation in 1893 is illegal and void. So even a referendum by a supposed group of Hawaiians is void.
Posts: 3,212
Threads: 103
Joined: May 2009
Oh, I'm guessing HOTPE will have something to say about Dr. deZayas, but following this logic, should each island be given back to their rulers as Kamehameha's unification program was certainly not legal as well. (No this is not just being a smart-ass, I am genuinly interested in when extra-legal proceedings whether they be a coup or conquest are justified)
Sorry, I can't resist: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JlmzUEQxOvA
Posts: 363
Threads: 1
Joined: Apr 2015
No. The Hawaiian Kingdom wasn't recognized as a sovereign nation until 1843. The lands were already united at that point. Two ways to extinguish or cede sovereignty were cession or conquest. Neither happened in the case of the US.
Again, the argument is a legal one. Nothing more, nothing less. We're saying follow the laws you have agreed to follow. That's all.
Posts: 11,008
Threads: 749
Joined: Sep 2012
Oh, I'm guessing HOTPE will have something to say about Dr. deZayas
You betcha!
Dr. deZayas, so many logical fallacies, so little time.
Kaimana, if you'd like to read more background on the good doctor, you might search Punaweb (top right of page - Search link), there's a treasure trove in the back pages.
"I'm at that stage in life where I stay out of discussions. Even if you say 1+1=5, you're right - have fun." - Keanu Reeves
Posts: 3,212
Threads: 103
Joined: May 2009
Kaimana - Two ways to extinguish or cede sovereignty were cession or conquest.
But isn't that what this was about:
QUEEN LILIUOKALANI'S LETTER OF ABDICATION
http://www.angelfire.com/planet/big60/Li...ation.html
... "I hereby do fully and unequivocally admit and declare that the Government of the Republic of Hawaii is the only lawful Government of the Hawaiian Islands, and that the late Hawaiian monarchy is finally and forever ended, and no longer of any legal or actual validity, force or effect whatsoever" ...
Posts: 3,200
Threads: 108
Joined: Jun 2010
Yeah, a coup is still conquest. I don't debate its merits. But the Hawaiian Kingdom was not able to win militarily, technologically, politically, legally, financially, socially, or in any other way. Whatever gods were believed in at the time didn't intervene. Not saying it was right, but that's how it was. At least in this democracy it can be protested, challenged legally, and perhaps some middle ground found.
Posts: 363
Threads: 1
Joined: Apr 2015
HOTPE- Can you break down the fallacies. I went through the old threads but there's way too many pages to go through.
randomq- A coup is not conquest. Sovereignty has to do with the people of the land, not the government. A coup is just changing out the government, it has nothing to do with sovereignty. Even if you believe the coup was a legal one, show me where there is a ratified treaty between the Republic of Hawaii and the US. I'll save you the time, there isn't one.
ironyak- First of all, even if you consider the letter a legal one, the Queen didn't have the power to single handily terminate the Hawaiian Kingdom. She wasn't an absolute monarch, she was a constitutional monarch. Her powers were limited their constitution and there were two other branches that would have had to sign off on something as important as that. It would be like if someone kidnapped the President and forced him to end the US and turn over power to another country.
Posts: 11,008
Threads: 749
Joined: Sep 2012
Can you break down the fallacies... there's way too many pages to go through.
Yes, there’s a lot to unpack. I’ll see if I can get to it, but probably not today.
It would be like if someone kidnapped the President and forced him to end the US and turn over power to another country.
Moderator: Please keep national politics out of Punaweb.
"I'm at that stage in life where I stay out of discussions. Even if you say 1+1=5, you're right - have fun." - Keanu Reeves
Posts: 363
Threads: 1
Joined: Apr 2015
I think if someone kidnapped *****, most of the world would thank whoever kidnapped him lol.
Moderator: Please keep national politics out of Punaweb.
Posts: 3,212
Threads: 103
Joined: May 2009
Kaimana - It would be like if someone kidnapped the President and forced him to end the US and turn over power to another country.
Well it would be more like if current and past congressmen, cabinet members, department heads, supreme court justices, and other government and business leaders occupied all the governmental offices, let the president travel about, ran the country in the meanwhile without any armed opposition, wrote and ratified a constitution, got a score of nations to recognize them as legitimate over the next few years, put down some armed resistance, then put the president on house arrest and had them abdicate. A little different, but yeah...
As for the treaty of annexation, as was pointed out then and now, the U.S. Constitution does not specify the process for acquiring territory and the Supreme Court does not take up "political questions" such as this (although a a couple Justices have opined off the record over the years in support of the joint resolution "process"). As such, the legal status of the action is strictly a matter of opinion, over which the debate still continues.
Or more succinctly, it's really not that simple.
|
