09-19-2015, 04:55 AM
The article states:
Civil Beat’s readers should know that a 152-year-old Hawaiian Kingdom Supreme Court decision instructs us precisely to interpret the “constitutional” language differently than Akina suggests we should.
So given that it is a law that has different interpretations, at the moment instead of stating categorically:
Law Recognizes Native Hawaiians as Indigenous People With Special Rights
It might be more accurate to to say:
Law May Have An Interpretation That Recognizes Native Hawaiians as Indigenous People With Special Rights
Recognition may take place as the writer suggested, when all of the surrounding issues are addressed (see Cagary's previous comments).
Civil Beat’s readers should know that a 152-year-old Hawaiian Kingdom Supreme Court decision instructs us precisely to interpret the “constitutional” language differently than Akina suggests we should.
So given that it is a law that has different interpretations, at the moment instead of stating categorically:
Law Recognizes Native Hawaiians as Indigenous People With Special Rights
It might be more accurate to to say:
Law May Have An Interpretation That Recognizes Native Hawaiians as Indigenous People With Special Rights
Recognition may take place as the writer suggested, when all of the surrounding issues are addressed (see Cagary's previous comments).
"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