State Judge rules Hawaiian Kingdom still exists

[dmbwest]

Wot, you neva' before that whole "cradle" post ??? WTF man ! LOL.

aloha,
pog

[Wao nahele wahine]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wao nahele kane

Pog, LOL... Thanks for reminding me that there is beer waiting for me down stairs. I need one.

---

So....that's why you came upstairs with two beers...one for you and one for me.

Wahine

[dmbwest]

sackley ! LOL 2 X

nuff said.

peace,
pog

[Wao nahele kane]

Wahine,
Thank Pog.

Kaimana... have you read all the cases regarding the Hawaiian matters? Each is sprinkled with a wealth of information regarding the entirety of the issue from the view points of the Justices. You may believe in your heart of hearts that there is a chance to win over the Supreme Court but in reality that wouldn't be the case. Let's assume for one moment some fancy lynch pin catches the eye of the Justices. You're forgetting one aspect of the Supreme Courts role above all others. I'm going to leave you with determining exactly why even if you proved your case as to why the Supreme Court would not rule in your favor. Mull it over till tomorrow afternoon and think about what that role might be.

[Mtviewdude]

quote:

---

For one if the US is found to be occupying Hawaii, then there is no State of Hawaii to dissolve.

All I'm seeing now are straw man and red herring arguments and slippery slopes.

---

So worst case, the Republic of Hawaii gets reformed and then petitions the US for statehood, done properly and without all the extras. That might work.

[Wao nahele wahine]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wao nahele kane

Wahine,
Thank Pog.

---

Mahalo, Pog. Cheers.

Wahine

[dmbwest]

May those that love us, love us.
And those that don’t love us,
May God turn their hearts.
And if he doesn’t turn their hearts,
May he turn their ankles,
So we’ll know them by their limping.

[Kaimana]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wao nahele kane

Wahine,
Thank Pog.

Kaimana... have you read all the cases regarding the Hawaiian matters? Each is sprinkled with a wealth of information regarding the entirety of the issue from the view points of the Justices. You may believe in your heart of hearts that there is a chance to win over the Supreme Court but in reality that wouldn't be the case. Let's assume for one moment some fancy lynch pin catches the eye of the Justices. You're forgetting one aspect of the Supreme Courts role above all others. I'm going to leave you with determining exactly why even if you proved your case as to why the Supreme Court would not rule in your favor. Mull it over till tomorrow afternoon and think about what that role might be.

---

I've read up on the major ones. Have you? If you did you'd realize that the Mankichi decision was made without all the info we have now(closed session transcripts). And you'd also realize that the Lorenzo case was only shot down due to the court ruling that the burden of proof was not met. Well the Maui judges judicial notice changes that, for now at least.

If your argument is that the US Supreme court will not make a ruling detrimental to itself even if its the legal ruling then you really don't have an argument now do you?

This discussion has devolved into something I hoped it wouldn't. A lot of name calling and avoiding the actual points being presented.

[Wao nahele kane]

Actually I've tossed this supreme Law of the land from the Constitution on the table a couple times previously on this thread but its meaning and impact on the matter doesn't seem to have sunk in yet.

Stop, read, comprehend and understand the scope of it's power over these matters. 23 simple words arranged in a sentence that blow Dr. Sai's legal argument right out of the water.


AGAIN this with respect to territories and States

Article 4 Section 3 last sentence.

"... and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State."

Which indeed affects the very enforceability of the whole of article 4 itself with regard to any challenges thereto regarding U.S. claim to Hawaii as a Territory and later a State. This single entry effectively nullifies any possible legal challenge to the State of Hawaii's legal legitimacy.

There's a very good reason for this entry in the Constitution. Think about it, it outlines very basic expected circumstances but then later effectively says that the guidelines nor anything within the Constitution can be used to prejudice U.S. claims and States legitimacy. This dissolves a possible disruption in domestic tranquility regarding a challenge to U.S. claims and States. It bars each territorial acquisition and member State from legal challenge with regard to legitimacy.

I could say this perhaps another 100 or more ways but what's the point? It's right there in Black and White and been in force for 226 years in this country.

Every law must be congruent with the Constitution thus no entry within the Constitution let alone a law or unusual method may be used to prejudice a State or U.S. claims. Now, I'm not going to waste anymore of my time playing patty cake with these bizarre notions of possibly proving the territory or state of Hawaii were illegal. It's silly nonsense.

[Wao nahele kane]

Kaimana,
If you can provide evidence that the U.S. never intended to lay claim of Hawaii as a territory please provide us with it.
If you can provide to us that the U.S. did not intended to join Hawaii as a member State of the Union please share it with us.

Because I have yet to see the lack of such claims by the United States. So unless you can provide for us this evidence, nothing else matters according to the Constitution.

If the method by which the claim was made was written on a match box and passed by a drunk Congress and President, howling at the moon and singed while atop painted ladies after verbally agreeing it would only take one Aye to pass and then flown to Hawaii by carrier pigeons where later defecated on by the same pigeon and the Republic of Hawaii wasn't even aware of a treaty of annexation let alone signed one (then in shock), it makes no difference. The claim was made and the Constitution won't allow you to prejudice that crazy method claim legally. Sorry.