State Judge rules Hawaiian Kingdom still exists

[Wao nahele kane]

I'm not interested in derailing the thread with the debate on what a natural born citizen means, however there was a retention prerequisite until a given age of x number of years for children born outside U.S. soils and territories of at least one U.S. citizen parent that didn't end until 1994. In other words they had to live within the states or its territories for x number of years until age X to retain citizenship.

I'm sure we can all appreciate not allowing foreign influence to permeate the highest office of the U.S., after all it's the basis of this thread, foreign influence altering the course of the Hawaiian Kingdom.

Anyhow, it was just brought up to illustrate an example of what could be considered affected by the State of Hawaii as never legitimately being a State or Territory. It can throw some hardballs our way in the U.S. in more ways than one.

[Wao nahele kane]

Just out of curiosity... How many would stay and apply for Hawaiian citizenship to live here should the State of Hawaii be dissolved? I for one would go back to the States because I'm not interested in giving up my U.S. citizenship or dealing with what ever birth pains might develop here. Plus... I don't see a lucrative future for the Islands economically speaking and with public assistance and all the other moneys sent to the State pulled by the U.S. it may get real ugly here very quickly. I envision something similar to what happened in Cuba - financially speaking that is. No real natural resources here of significant value for export, etc. The island would have to compete directly with South America etc. in produce and fisheries etc. What a cluster F. No thanks, I see the U.S. as the glue that binds these islands socially and economically. The late 1800's have come and gone along with the minimal expectations they afforded a less demanding populace with far more simplistic lifestyles. Anyhow, just my initial thoughts.

[PunaMauka2]

i would better waste away my time entertaining the notion of being impaled by a runaway unicorn galloping down Mamo street.

[JohnDW]

Here's some lite reading that may add dimension to the conversation. Just patrolling the waters of the Hawaiian archipelago seems like a monumental undertaking.

http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pub...96.sum.pdf

Un Mojado Sin Licencia

[ironyak]

Before imagining the best or worst of scenarios, a couple points of order.

Originally posted by Kaimana
if the Kingdom of Hawaii was illegally annexed and is being occupied then that wrong should be righted.

As written, there is no need to figure out if the annexation of 1898 was legal or not - there is NO treaty of annexation between the US and the KINGDOM of Hawaii at all, but rather between the US and the REPUBLIC of Hawaii which was in place after the overthrow in 1893. Is that the point you're making?

The only thing that nobody has successfully argued against is the legality of US Congress to use a joint-resolution to annex a sovereign nation without a standing ratified treaty in place. The Texas example is not a valid one due to the treaty of guadalupe hidalgo giving sovereignty to the US from Mexico.

To put this plainly - The independent and sovereign Republic of Texas was annexed by the US using a joint-resolution in congress and became the 28th state on Dec 29th, 1845. This precipitated the Mexican-American war which ended with the signing of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hildalgo on Feb 2, 1848. How could the treaty have any role to play in transferring sovereignty over two years after Texas was already a state?

Here is the text of the Treaty if that helps:
http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=false&doc=26&page=transcript

As Texas is explicitly stated as the precedent during debate in congress over Hawaii's annexation, this history is important to address and understand.

[ironyak]

For those that aren't familiar with some of the recent arguments related to sovereignty, BIVN has a multi-part series on the possible implications including clouded property titles, war crimes, and the legal status of the POTUS.

http://www.bigislandvideonews.com/2013/1...vereignty/

[Kaimana]

"As written, there is no need to figure out if the annexation of 1898 was legal or not - there is NO treaty of annexation between the US and the KINGDOM of Hawaii at all, but rather between the US and the REPUBLIC of Hawaii which was in place after the overthrow in 1893. Is that the point you're making?"

No, even if you disagree with the standing executive agreements between the POTUS and the Queen to restore the Kingdom of Hawaii and accept the Republic of Hawaii as the legal acting government at the time, there is still no ratified treaty of annexation between the US an any Government representing Hawaii, whether it be the Kingdom of Hawaii or the Republic. Only a joint resolution, which is an agreement between the US and itself.

A joint resolution is a legislative action of Congress, while a Senate resolution of ratification is an executive action in concurrence with the President by virtue of his authority under Article II, not under Article I of the U.S. Constitution. Article II, section 2 provides that the President“shall have the power, by and with the advice and consent of the senate, to make treaties, provided two-thirds of the senators present concur.”

The argument against Texas being annexed by joint-resolution is that the original Treaty of Annexation was denied due to Mexico still claiming sovereign rights over the territory since there was no transfer of sovereignty between Mexico and Texas. Then the war happened and Mexico transferred the sovereign rights over to the US with the treaty of annexation.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dr. Keanu Sai

To clarify this, Professor William Adam Russ, Jr., a history scholar and political scientist, notes the manner in which Texas was admitted as a state, and concludes the annexationists’ use of Texas was an “absurdity.”

Russ explains that,The resolution merely signified the willingness of the United States to admit Texas as a state if it fulfilled certain conditions, such as acceptance of annexation. Obviously, if Texas refused, there would be neither annexation of a territory nor admission of a state. Moreover, there was a time limit that Texas had to present to Congress a duly ratified state constitution on or before January 1, 1846. The Texan Congress adopted the joint resolution on June 21, 1845, accepting the American offer. A special convention which met on July 4, 1845, accepted annexation and wrote a state constitution. In October, 1845, the people in a referendum not only ratified the constitution but also voted to accept annexation. Thus annexation was, in effect, accepted three times. On December 28, 1845, a bill to admit the new state was signed by President Polk, and formal admission took place on February 19, 1846, with the seating of Texan members in both houses of Congress.”

---

So in fact, Texas was never the sole holder of the sovereign rights of the land and even if they were they were given the opportunity to vote on the annexation. Hawaii was the sole holder of sovereignty, there was never a transfer.


Also another fact that was brought to my attention on another forum was that the actual voting for statehood was not in accordance with international law, U.N. Resolution 742, due to the fact that there was no option to self govern. The only two options where remain an annexed territory or become a state.

[ironyak]

You pack a lot in here - I'll try to break it down.

Originally posted by Kaimana
No, even if you disagree with the standing executive agreements between the POTUS and the Queen to restore the Kingdom of Hawaii

Which US President? When was this agreement made?

and accept the Republic of Hawaii as the legal acting government at the time, there is still no ratified treaty of annexation between the US an any Government representing Hawaii, whether it be the Kingdom of Hawaii or the Republic. Only a joint resolution, which is an agreement between the US and itself.

This is an unfortunate and common misinterpretation of the word "treaty" and tries to limit it to only those ratified by Article II procedures.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_Clau...nal_accord
"...
U.S. law distinguishes what it calls treaties from congressional-executive agreements and sole-executive agreements. All three classes are considered treaties under international law; they are distinct only from the perspective of internal United States law.
...
Since the Franklin Roosevelt presidency, only 6% of international accords have been completed as Article II treaties. Most of these executive agreements consist of congressional-executive agreements.
"

By your logic, 94% of the US international agreements over the last 80 years are invalid because they did not follow Article II protocol? Here is an interesting read on the evolution of the US treaty system.
https://www.press.umich.edu/pdf/9780472116874-ch1.pdf

The argument against Texas being annexed by joint-resolution is that the original Treaty of Annexation was denied due to Mexico still claiming sovereign rights over the territory since there was no transfer of sovereignty between Mexico and Texas. Then the war happened and Mexico transferred the sovereign rights over to the US with the treaty of annexation.

Please quote anything in the treaty about transferring sovereign rights.

So in fact, Texas was never the sole holder of the sovereign rights of the land and even if they were they were given the opportunity to vote on the annexation.

Unlike Belgium, Denmark, US, Russia, and several other nations, Mexico refused to recognize the independent Republic of Texas after the Texas Revolution. Are you saying that only Mexico could grant sovereignty?

Hawaii was the sole holder of sovereignty, there was never a transfer.

The Republic or the Kingdom of Hawaii? What makes a nation sovereign?

Also another fact that was brought to my attention on another forum was that the actual voting for statehood was not in accordance with international law, U.N. Resolution 742, due to the fact that there was no option to self govern. The only two options where remain an annexed territory or become a state.

Here we can agree - passed in 1953, the UN resolution regarding administration of "territories whose peoples have not yet attained a full measure of self-government" includes:
"Freedom of choice. Freedom of choosing on the basis of the right to self-determination of a peoples between several possibilities, including independence."

http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUT...penElement

[Kaimana]

Which US President? When was this agreement made?

President Cleveland. After the investigation of the overthrow.

This is an unfortunate and common misinterpretation of the word "treaty" and tries to limit it to only those ratified by Article II procedures.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_Clau...nal_accord
"...
U.S. law distinguishes what it calls treaties from congressional-executive agreements and sole-executive agreements. All three classes are considered treaties under international law; they are distinct only from the perspective of internal United States law.
...
Since the Franklin Roosevelt presidency, only 6% of international accords have been completed as Article II treaties. Most of these executive agreements consist of congressional-executive agreements.
"

By your logic, 94% of the US international agreements over the last 80 years are invalid because they did not follow Article II protocol? Here is an interesting read on the evolution of the US treaty system.
https://www.press.umich.edu/pdf/9780472116874-ch1.pdf


How many of those agreements involved the sovereignty of another nation? That is a special case in which a treaty must signed by both nations involved. Again, a joint-resolution is a congressional act which doesn't extend beyond the territory of the US. So joint-resolutions that are used in place of international treaties are used to ensure we follow through on negotiated actions. But it's only a national law that the President/executive branch is responsible for enforcing within the US borders.

Now when it comes to matters involving transfer of ownership/title you have to have a treaty in which both parties agree to and sign.

It's the same when you buy a car. The title can't be transferred if both the previous owner and the new owner don't sign the title.

Unlike Belgium, Denmark, US, Russia, and several other nations, Mexico refused to recognize the independent Republic of Texas after the Texas Revolution. Are you saying that only Mexico could grant sovereignty?

Yes since they never relinquished it.

[HereOnThePrimalEdge]

If the courts are admitting they don't have jurisdiction here in Hawaii, which is basically what was said by the court of this topics subject.

The judge who said the courts don't have jurisdiction, is a circuit court judge. Neither he nor a circuit court have any jurisdiction in international law.

It would be like watching a football game with a basketball referee. He sees a bad call made on the field by the football refs. Your friend the basketball ref might even be right. But the call is not going to be overturned because he's a basketball ref. He's not a football ref, and he's not on the field with any decision making powers in the real game. Just as a circuit court judge has no say in international law.