07-23-2019, 06:20 AM
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.