State Judge rules Hawaiian Kingdom still exists

[Wao nahele kane]

My point works on the more fundamental law of the United States. Where we the people decide for ourselves and the subjects of Hawaii, were the people, they spoke, and because our supreme law rests in the power of the people and the people of Hawaii spoke, Hawaii is technically a legal State by virtue of the power of its people. The end.

[kalakoa]

if anything they were finally given the right to vote, etc.

Exactly: the Native Hawaiians can now cast votes in the very government system that overthrew their monarchy. How could they not be happy about that?

[Wao nahele kane]

The peoples voice is the rightful supreme law of the land and when they vote as a group, their decision trumps all other laws of the land, international or otherwise. So you can take all that other legal mumbo jumbo and spin it how ever you like, it's been trumped by the peoples rightful supreme power.

[Wao nahele kane]

Now... if you want to talk financial reparations for the takings of the lands etc. from the royalty, then that's another matter and it can be rectified through the courts with the royal family but to assume the Hawaiian nation will be re-established and given authority over the FREE PEOPLE of these islands... that's complete fairytale B.S.

[ironyak]

Originally posted by Wao nahele kane
The peoples voice is the rightful supreme law of the land and when they vote as a group, their decision trumps all other laws of the land, international or otherwise.

Um, no, not legally, although perhaps you meant philosophically? The US is a Republic , not a direct democracy and much of the constiutional framework (checks and balances, separation of powers, bill of rights, etc) is meant to prevent a "tyranny of the majority." (Where is rainyjim when he's needed?

International law applies between nations regardless of the "voice of the people", free or otherwise.

[OnoOno]

quote:

---

Originally posted by ironyak

Originally posted by Wao nahele kane
The peoples voice is the rightful supreme law of the land and when they vote as a group, their decision trumps all other laws of the land, international or otherwise.

Um, no, not legally, although perhaps you meant philosophically? The US is a Republic , not a direct democracy and much of the constiutional framework (checks and balances, separation of powers, bill of rights, etc) is meant to prevent a "tyranny of the majority." (Where is rainyjim when he's needed?

International law applies between nations regardless of the "voice of the people", free or otherwise.

---

You simply don't get it, most likely because you don't want to get it.

The deal is signed sealed and delivered, and has been resting in the Vaults of History for 65 years. So much has been invested and built of the strength of that act, that it will, and can, never be undone.

Ono - So Fast - So Tasty!

[Wao nahele kane]

I'm fully aware of the checks and balances to keep majority tyranny in check. But that does not remove the fact, and using our second amendment as an example, the ultimate in guaranteeing the security of a FREE STATE. Thus a majority gathered in the context of securing a free state status is indeed written into the frame work. Be it by vote or by Arms, it is a fundamental aspect of our legal frame work where a majority, be they armed by pen or by firearm have permanently secured our power as a free people. There it is, in our supreme laws and can be noted throughout the frame work. So no, it is not simply a philosophy, re-read the second amendment and the Preamble.

[Wao nahele kane]

When we conduct business in a typical daily environment under normal circumstances the general outline of the Constitution lays out the ground rules. When in the face of adversity, the philosophical freedom aspect kicks in LEGALLY. That bottom legal line revolves around the power of the people to secure freedom. Not to secure tyranny. The people secured their freedom here in Hawaii and it's legally backed by our Constitution. International law be damned should it elect to undermine freedom and we have the right legally to kick it's meddling butt out of our way should we elect and by arms should we deem it necessary.

[lavalava]

todays Kanaka headline -http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/04/21/collecting-taxes-might-just-be-a-war-crime-in-hawaii.html

A not very flattering look at the issue with a little Swiss flair!

[Kaimana]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wao nahele kane

Kaimana,
The kingdom of Hawaii was/is a sovereign nation and when last exercising its authority didn't allow its subject the right to vote according to the record. So when it boils down to it, the only thing that was taken from anyone was that which was taken from the royalty and those who were high up in government, Yes? I don't think the average Hawaiian lost anything and if anything they were finally given the right to vote, etc. But the right to carry firearms and have the real physical power has never been afforded to anyone in Hawaii, not even as a State, unlike the citizens of the remaining 50 states who do have that sort of power. Is that a little more accurate than stating it's like someone steeling your car? If "your" is referencing the citizenry base of the Kingdom then "your" car wasn't stolen, if "your" is in reference to the royal family and the government figures then yes... it was taken from them.

Just trying to get a more accurate perspective on the matter. Would that not be a more accurate accounting?

---

Absolutely wrong. We were a constitutional monarchy. People could vote on issues and who represented them in congress and the Monarch didn't have absolute power.

quote:

---

Originally posted by OnoOno

quote:

---

In Hawaii's case the joint resolution was used to bring Hawaii in as a territory, which is not legal.

---

The attempts to undo the long-done, accepted and supported past this far down the line because of some diminutive technical quasi-legal issue is moronic and borders on Sedition.

Ono - So Fast - So Tasty!

---

So you have no valid argument for the legality of the annexation. Good to know.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wao nahele kane

In the Kingdom of Hawaii the citizen had no sovereignty as all sovereignty was vested in the power of its Royalty. In the United States and as US citizens the former subjects of the sovereign gained their rightful individual sovereign status. U.S. sovereignty is a product of its citizens rightful sovereignty or at least that's how it's supposed to work according to the supreme law of U.S.

---

Wrong again. Like I said earlier the Queen was not the absolute power. There was a separation of power just like the US. Executive branch, legislative branch and judicial branch.

The queen abdicated her position in the government. She had no power to give up sovereignty alone.