09-02-2018, 04:38 PM
kalakoa - She would be better off sitting in Council but claiming "conflict of interest" for every vote.
I'm not sure this is allowed - it sounds like a yes or no vote is required (silence is conveniently considered a yes vote).
randomq - Ironyak, they specifically ruled on Hawaii (states) right to own and sell ceded lands, and the legality of the ceding.
If you read the transcript, the justices continually and repeatedly confine the case to whether the Apology Resolution in fact changed anything with regards to the State's right to sell ceded lands (which they ruled it did not). There is no discussion on the 1893 overthrow nor the 1898 wartime annexation of Hawaii. Like it or not, Hawaii has taken an almost unprecedented path to becoming a state (Texas is the closest comparison), and the legality of many of the steps involved were questioned at the time, and continue to be today as well.
Now the U.S. doesn't have much of a track record of letting legal issues get in the way of its interests (which is unlikely to change for Hawaii), but at least some are willing to ask the tough questions. I too cannot see a rational ulterior motive for Jen, so I consider her statements on the matter to be sincere, although IMHO there is a bit of a F-U going on to a council that has been quite hostile to her and her requests for Puna during her tenure (which earns her extra points in my book
I'm not sure this is allowed - it sounds like a yes or no vote is required (silence is conveniently considered a yes vote).
randomq - Ironyak, they specifically ruled on Hawaii (states) right to own and sell ceded lands, and the legality of the ceding.
If you read the transcript, the justices continually and repeatedly confine the case to whether the Apology Resolution in fact changed anything with regards to the State's right to sell ceded lands (which they ruled it did not). There is no discussion on the 1893 overthrow nor the 1898 wartime annexation of Hawaii. Like it or not, Hawaii has taken an almost unprecedented path to becoming a state (Texas is the closest comparison), and the legality of many of the steps involved were questioned at the time, and continue to be today as well.
Now the U.S. doesn't have much of a track record of letting legal issues get in the way of its interests (which is unlikely to change for Hawaii), but at least some are willing to ask the tough questions. I too cannot see a rational ulterior motive for Jen, so I consider her statements on the matter to be sincere, although IMHO there is a bit of a F-U going on to a council that has been quite hostile to her and her requests for Puna during her tenure (which earns her extra points in my book