07-23-2019, 09:16 AM
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.
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.