05-16-2015, 05:03 PM
(1) The SCOTUS makes it fairly clear that there is no way to revisit the matter of Hawaii's annexation or the admission of the State of Hawaii to the Union. It further continues by noting what would appear to be a notation regarding an attempt to retroactively apply a law "apology resolution" three decades after admission as a State.
"Third, because the resolution would raise grave constitutional concerns if it purported to “cloud” Hawaii’s title to its sovereign lands more than three decades after the State’s admission to the Union, see, e.g., Idaho v. United States, 533 U. S. 262, 280, n. 9, the Court refuses to read the nonsubstantive “whereas” clauses to create such a “cloud” retroactively, see, e.g., Clark v. Martinez, 543 U. S. 371, 381– 382. Pp. 10–12. 117 Haw. 174, 177 P. 3d 884, reversed and remanded. ALITO, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court."
So no, I don't feel it's possible to challenge State ownership of those now public lands. This also reminds me that these ceded lands are now more so owned by the Native Hawaiian than they were under the Kingdom. Though it now takes a 2/3 State legislative vote to dispose/sell these lands, I believe they are still available for particular lease uses of which Native Hawaiians are afforded an array of guaranteed loans to execute such ventures.
(2) After reading through a few PDF files worth of transcripts in comments by the representatives of the Native Hawaiians that there was little to no desire to establish a unified Hawaiian Government to US Government relationship and that the current community organizations became by default the current continued course of representation of the Native Hawaiian communities. So that Government to Government relationship would appear not possible at this time.
(3) I don't feel it's possible for the State of Hawaii combined with the US Congress to generate any sort of Hawaiian Independent Sovereignty for full governance within or of the State of Hawaii.
(4) I don't feel the movement is gaining ground because it has no unity and therefore will remain in a state of continue turmoil regarding any sort of settlement in matters. These situations will only increase in scope as time goes on.
(5) I don't think it can be resolved and each issue will add itself the growing pile of issues while further diluting the ability to resolve each following issues as they arise.
"Third, because the resolution would raise grave constitutional concerns if it purported to “cloud” Hawaii’s title to its sovereign lands more than three decades after the State’s admission to the Union, see, e.g., Idaho v. United States, 533 U. S. 262, 280, n. 9, the Court refuses to read the nonsubstantive “whereas” clauses to create such a “cloud” retroactively, see, e.g., Clark v. Martinez, 543 U. S. 371, 381– 382. Pp. 10–12. 117 Haw. 174, 177 P. 3d 884, reversed and remanded. ALITO, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court."
So no, I don't feel it's possible to challenge State ownership of those now public lands. This also reminds me that these ceded lands are now more so owned by the Native Hawaiian than they were under the Kingdom. Though it now takes a 2/3 State legislative vote to dispose/sell these lands, I believe they are still available for particular lease uses of which Native Hawaiians are afforded an array of guaranteed loans to execute such ventures.
(2) After reading through a few PDF files worth of transcripts in comments by the representatives of the Native Hawaiians that there was little to no desire to establish a unified Hawaiian Government to US Government relationship and that the current community organizations became by default the current continued course of representation of the Native Hawaiian communities. So that Government to Government relationship would appear not possible at this time.
(3) I don't feel it's possible for the State of Hawaii combined with the US Congress to generate any sort of Hawaiian Independent Sovereignty for full governance within or of the State of Hawaii.
(4) I don't feel the movement is gaining ground because it has no unity and therefore will remain in a state of continue turmoil regarding any sort of settlement in matters. These situations will only increase in scope as time goes on.
(5) I don't think it can be resolved and each issue will add itself the growing pile of issues while further diluting the ability to resolve each following issues as they arise.