State Judge rules Hawaiian Kingdom still exists

[MattKarma]

Eh, not so great; had to qualify it. Glad you like it though.

[Wao nahele kane]

Kaimana,

I want Captain Cooks remains returned to his homeland. Produce those and we'll end occupation.

Hopena pô`ino... never steal a European explorers cutter.

As per the said requirements for acceptance by the US... Had the Republic of Hawaii been in opposition to the method in which the US accepted the Republics cede, they could have objected then but they didn't. The Republic not only did not object, they joyously accepted how the US executed the cede and therefore it's not yours to challenge. It was up to the Republic to oppose the method, not you and the Republic relinquished its authority to the US willingly. It's a done deal, end of debate and no disjointed "non contextual legal artifact" to the contrary can or will change that arrangement. Your points lack merit and are not contextual to the final arrangement between the Republic and the US.

[Kaimana]

When you say "The Republic" you realize that was a small minority right? The majority of Hawaiian Nationals were against the annexation as evident by the Ku'e petitions.

Also an invalid contract is an invalid contract. It doesn't matter how happy everyone is with it.

Sidenote: some interesting developments internationally.
http://www.hawaiiankingdom.info/?p=2012

http://hawaiiankingdom.org/blog/swiss-fe...r-annexed/

[opihikao]

Sorry, not to interrupt a very decent exchange (mahalo, Kaimana for the link and the respectful dissertation. Very well versed you are.)

Kane, are you Capt. Cook's ohana? Is that why you demand his remains? Sometimes you throw me off, lol... (With respect) I recall vividly while in Victoria, Canada, the tales of the great Capt. Cook. He landed at Nootka Sound in the late 1700's. His statute was front and center at the bay, in front of the Empress Hotel. (Kala mai, I digress.)

You know, these are the comments that floor me, yet are cause for pause. However, doesn't help in the solution we all face today. ALL of us need to resolve the past, but move forward.

Mahalo for your part in a very good discussion. It's all interpretation, and legally, leaves room for continued discussion. It's been over one (1) hundred years, why not discuss it a little further in order to find resolution.



JMO.

[Wao nahele kane]

Opihikao,
The Captain Cooks remains comment was in jest, as was the bad karma comment regarding Cooks stolen cutter ultimately leading to "occupation". It was mostly inspired by Matt Karmas three ships statement and the seeming adopted exclusivity in innocence regarding past Western and Hawaiian relations adopted by the "Kingdomers".

Kaimana,
Re-read the "treaty" requirements. They were met, there was Senate Presidential consultation, 2/3rds Senate approval and presidential approval. In addition, there was a 2/3rd House approval.

[opihikao]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wao nahele kane

Opihikao,
The Captain Cooks remains comment was in jest, as was the bad karma comment regarding Cooks stolen cutter ultimately leading to "occupation". It was mostly inspired by Matt Karmas three ships statement and the seeming adopted exclusivity in innocence regarding past Western and Hawaiian relations adopted by the "Kingdomers".

Kaimana,
Re-read the "treaty" requirements. They were met, there was Senate Presidential consultation, 2/3rds Senate approval and presidential approval. In addition, there was a 2/3rd House approval.

---

Of course, was just being facetious, Sir. Enjoying the levity in such an important time, perhaps historic. (Rose colored glasses are on! Again.)

JMO.

[Kaimana]

Joint resolution =\= Senate advice and consent.

There is no ratified treaty of annexation and even the US government admits that by not listing it in their treaties list.

[Wao nahele kane]

Ah but you forget... Senate advice came the first go around and then the Senate shelved it and little later pulled it back down off the shelf and gave it consent by 2/3rds in a joint resolution. There was no stipulation as to the exact timing or order, but all those things occurred and were met at one time or another within the two separate considerations.

[Wao nahele kane]

Was there Senate Advice? Yes.
Was there Senate approval and consent by 2/3rds? Yes
Did the President approve it? Yes.


That's all that counts.

There is no second party involved that would require an active treaty.
It takes two or more entities to have an active treaty and that's why I used Russia and the US as an example when outlining Alaska. There is no Republic of Hawaii anymore and thus no active treaties with them, the Republic of Hawaii technically ceased to exist upon their act of cede to the US. This is why a treaty was not the appropriate methodology for the action of self cede to the US. It's not like selling a house in any respect or an agreement/contract of any other kind and unique unto its own construct. It cannot be compared.

[Kaimana]

You're convoluting the process of senate advice and consent to fit your conclusion. When the treaty was introduced the senate decided not to vote on it, that was their advice. They then started an entirely new process, joint-resolution, which is not advice and consent. This was an entirely separate act that has nothing to do with the treaty presented.

The US itself admits that it annexed Hawaii via joint-resolution. Why do you keep arguing that they annexed it via treaty?