State Judge rules Hawaiian Kingdom still exists

[lavalava]

So the questions remain - who is your leader and what do you want?

[Kaimana]

quote:

---

Originally posted by lavalava

So the questions remain - who is your leader and what do you want?

---

That's not how it works. There would be a period of deoccupation where we can figure that all out. The main thing right now is to get it recognized that we are being illegally occupied.

There are people who have been doing things behind the scenes to be ready for when that day comes though.

[Wao nahele kane]

"People could vote on issues and who represented them in congress and the Monarch didn't have absolute power."
Actually the queen was attempting to give a vote back to the people and it didn't happen. So according to the historical evidence, commoners weren't allowed a vote at the time.

[OnoOno]

quote:

---

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

---

I have no valid argument for or against the legality of the annexation, because there is no valid reason to consider the issue, as it is "settled". Way settled. Ultra-settled. Untold $B worth of settled, an no group of self-serving nobodies is going to change that!

You might as well consider the issue of giving Manhattan Island back!!!

It's time for this silly issue to scamper on like a good little nutjob.

Ono - So Fast - So Tasty!

[lavalava]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaimana

quote:

---

Originally posted by lavalava

So the questions remain - who is your leader and what do you want?

---

That's not how it works. There would be a period of deoccupation where we can figure that all out. The main thing right now is to get it recognized that we are being illegally occupied.

There are people who have been doing things behind the scenes to be ready for when that day comes though.

---

And that is why this movement will stagnate and fall apart. A whole bunch of fury but no plans. No dialog with the community just a lot of noise. A clearer plan coupled with some outreach might get you some broader support...

[Wao nahele kane]

"Lili#699;uokalani inherited the throne from her brother Kalâkaua on January 29, 1891.[6] Shortly after ascending the throne, petitions from her people began to be received through the two major political parties of the time, Hui Kala'aina and the National Reform Party. Believing she had the support of her cabinet and that to ignore such a general request from her people would be against the popular will, she moved to abrogate the existing 1887 Bayonet Constitution,[7] by drafting a new constitution that would restore the veto power to the monarchy and voting rights to economically disenfranchised native Hawaiians and Asians.[8] The effort to draft a new constitution never came to fruition, and it preceded the U.S. invasion, occupation and overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom government.

Threatened by the queen's proposed new constitution, American and European businessmen and residents organized to depose Lili#699;uokalani, asserting that the queen had "virtually abdicated" by refusing to support the 1887 Constitution. Business interests within the Kingdom were also upset about what they viewed as "poor governance" of the Kingdom, as well as the U.S. removal of foreign tariffs in the sugar trade due to the McKinley Tariff. The tariff eliminated the favored status of Hawaiian sugar guaranteed by the Reciprocity Treaty of 1875. American and Europeans actively sought annexation to the United States so that their business might enjoy the same sugar bounties as domestic producers. In addition to these concerns, Lili'uokalani believed that American businessmen, like Charles R. Bishop, expressed an anxiety concerning a female head of state."

So this tells us, the people didn't have the right to vote and weren't going to get the right to vote. That's the same Constitutional Monarchy we're discussing, correct?

[Kaimana]

quote:

---

Originally posted by OnoOno

quote:

---

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

---

I have no valid argument for or against the legality of the annexation, because there is no valid reason to consider the issue, as it is "settled". Way settled. Ultra-settled. Untold $B worth of settled, an no group of self-serving nobodies is going to change that!

You might as well consider the issue of giving Manhattan Island back!!!

It's time for this silly issue to scamper on like a good little nutjob.

Ono - So Fast - So Tasty!

---

Again no argument. Thanks.

[OnoOno]

quote:

---

Originally posted by lavalava

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaimana

quote:

---

Originally posted by lavalava

So the questions remain - who is your leader and what do you want?

---

That's not how it works. There would be a period of deoccupation where we can figure that all out. The main thing right now is to get it recognized that we are being illegally occupied.

There are people who have been doing things behind the scenes to be ready for when that day comes though.

---

And that is why this movement will stagnate and fall apart. A whole bunch of fury but no plans. No dialog with the community just a lot of noise. A clearer plan coupled with some outreach might get you some broader support...

---

It will, of course, fail, because it has not rational, moral or logical foundation. Legal side issues notwithstanding, nobody wants it, everybody rejects, if not outright belly-laughs at the very idea, well, except for the self-serving Luddite nutjobs.

Ono - So Fast - So Tasty!

[OnoOno]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaimana

quote:

---

Originally posted by OnoOno

quote:

---

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

---

I have no valid argument for or against the legality of the annexation, because there is no valid reason to consider the issue, as it is "settled". Way settled. Ultra-settled. Untold $B worth of settled, an no group of self-serving nobodies is going to change that!

You might as well consider the issue of giving Manhattan Island back!!!

It's time for this silly issue to scamper on like a good little nutjob.

Ono - So Fast - So Tasty!

---

Again no argument. Thanks.

---

I am not in the habit of aruguing against irrelevancies. You can tilt at windmills if you wish, but, other than providing a source of amusement, it is of no value whatsoever.

Ono - So Fast - So Tasty!

[Kaimana]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wao nahele kane

"Lili#699;uokalani inherited the throne from her brother Kalâkaua on January 29, 1891.[6] Shortly after ascending the throne, petitions from her people began to be received through the two major political parties of the time, Hui Kala'aina and the National Reform Party. Believing she had the support of her cabinet and that to ignore such a general request from her people would be against the popular will, she moved to abrogate the existing 1887 Bayonet Constitution,[7] by drafting a new constitution that would restore the veto power to the monarchy and voting rights to economically disenfranchised native Hawaiians and Asians.[8] The effort to draft a new constitution never came to fruition, and it preceded the U.S. invasion, occupation and overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom government.

Threatened by the queen's proposed new constitution, American and European businessmen and residents organized to depose Lili#699;uokalani, asserting that the queen had "virtually abdicated" by refusing to support the 1887 Constitution. Business interests within the Kingdom were also upset about what they viewed as "poor governance" of the Kingdom, as well as the U.S. removal of foreign tariffs in the sugar trade due to the McKinley Tariff. The tariff eliminated the favored status of Hawaiian sugar guaranteed by the Reciprocity Treaty of 1875. American and Europeans actively sought annexation to the United States so that their business might enjoy the same sugar bounties as domestic producers. In addition to these concerns, Lili'uokalani believed that American businessmen, like Charles R. Bishop, expressed an anxiety concerning a female head of state."

So this tells us, the people didn't have the right to vote and weren't going to get the right to vote. That's the same Constitutional Monarchy we're discussing, correct?

---

Most people had the right to vote, but you have to remember that in the US women and african-americans couldn't vote either.

You also have to remember at that time Hawaiian Nationals controlled most of the land. So most Hawaiians had a vote.

If left on our own I have no doubt we would have eventually had it so everyone had a vote.

We were way less racist than the US at that time.