08-06-2019, 05:04 AM
Because the Newlands Resolution was not a Treaty, but rather a Joint Resolution by Congress, which opponents say does not count (despite the other examples of territory being annexed through Joint Resolution).
As Supreme Court Justice Scalia noted, the U.S. Government went through "a process" in annexing the Republic of Hawaii (which is not subject to Supreme Court review at it is a "political question") in which the intent of both parties was made clear. This whole "you need to do it this way only" argument was, and still is, a minority legal opinion. Seems strange to hang so much on so little, instead of pursing rights enumerated in State law, but here we are.
As Supreme Court Justice Scalia noted, the U.S. Government went through "a process" in annexing the Republic of Hawaii (which is not subject to Supreme Court review at it is a "political question") in which the intent of both parties was made clear. This whole "you need to do it this way only" argument was, and still is, a minority legal opinion. Seems strange to hang so much on so little, instead of pursing rights enumerated in State law, but here we are.