Posts: 363
Threads: 1
Joined: Apr 2015
quote:
Originally posted by Wao nahele kane
Well they exceeded article VII of the treaty by also adding the House of representative to the matter. Not only did the president and the Senate by 2/3 approve the treaty within the resolution they thought it prudent to include the House of Represenatives to join in on the vote. Hell, that only makes the deal far more firm and binding.
So you're complaining because the house was made of 2x6's instead of 2X4s and you're now saying that makes the house weaker? Because that's exactly what was expressed by Dr. Sai (Crazy talk).
You do realize that Congress consists of a House of Representatives and a Senate correct? The Constitution requires Congressional approval under article 4 section 3... not just the Senate approval.
So Constitutionally speaking, the joint resolutions for Texas and Hawaii are perhaps the most Constitutionally congruent admittances to the Union because they included the House of Representatives also thus observing the requisite call for Congressional approval.
Constitutionally speaking, the House has no power what so ever in dealing with foreign treaties.
I think the disagreement comes from you believing that a joint-resolution carries the same power as a ratified treaty. As stated earlier a joint-resolution is an act of congress which has no power outside of US territory. A ratified treaty is an executive act with the "advice" of the Senate. The House is not involved in it at all so your statement of the House's involvement somehow makes it more binding is false.
The President/Executive branch is the only branch with the authority to act as a representative of the US in foreign affairs. So how can a joint-resolution, which is a congressional act not an executive one, have any authority beyond the US borders?
If your argument is that the US doesn't need to follow its own laws that's one thing, but it still doesn't address the fact that there is no document that is ratified by both the US and Hawaii ceding it's sovereignty to the US. There is only a failed treaty and a joint-resolution accepting that failed treaty unilaterally by the US.
Some scholars, however, argued that the annexation of both Texas and Hawai`i
did not take place by congressional action, but by congressional-executive agreement
instead. These are international agreements “made by the President as authorized in
advance or approved afterwards by joint resolution of Congress.” Other international
agreements made by the President under his own constitutional authority are called sole
executive agreements that do not require ratification from the Senate nor approval by the
Congress, and the distinction between these “so-called ‘executive agreements’ and
‘treaties’ is purely a constitutional one and has no international significance.”
According to Professor Louis Henkin, “the constitutionality of the CongressionalExecutive
agreement seems established, [and] it is used regularly at least for trade and
postal agreements, and remains available to Presidents for wide, even general use should
the treaty process again prove difficult.” The underlying problem, however, is that the
joint resolution of annexation did not approve any executive agreement made by the
President with the Republic of Hawai`i, whether before or after, but rather embodied the
text of the failed treaty itself in statute form and used by the President as if it was a
ratification of the treaty. If the Congress has no authority to negotiate with foreign
governments, then how can it legislate the annexation of a foreign State that exists
beyond its territorial borders. As a legislative body empowered to enact laws that are
limited to governing U.S. territory, Congress could no more annex the Hawaiian Islands
in 1898 as matter of military necessity during the Spanish American war than it could
annex Afghanistan today as a matter of military necessity during the American war on
terrorism. Without a treaty of cession or even a bona fide congressional-executive
agreement, the sovereignty of the Hawaiian State remains unaffected by foreign
legislation of any State. There remains no evidence in either the Presidential or
Congressional records that a congressional-executive agreement was even contemplated
or even discussed in the annexations of both Texas and Hawai`i.
http://www2.hawaii.edu/~anu/pdf/Disserta...Sai%29.pdf
Posts: 2,377
Threads: 124
Joined: Jun 2009
(Joint resolution, executive agreement, treaty)
" What follows does not purport to be a discussion of Constitutional limitations upon the freedoms of the United States to exercise the power to enter into agreements with other countries with which it was endowed when it came into being as a new State after a successful revolution. As the topic indicates, the matter for consideration is a much narrower one, pertaining to the procedures by which the United States may and does, without constitutional hindrance, undertake, through particular agencies, to assume contractual obligations within that broad field where it is acknowledged to possess unfettered capacity to contract with foreign countries.
It is a striking fact that the fundamental law of the United States as exemplified in its Constitution contains little that is on its face mandatory in respect to method. Yet little means much. All are of course aware of the conditions to be met in the consummation of a “treaty” so-called, and of the requirement as to the advice and consent of the Senate. Yet it will be recalled that no definition of a treaty is to be found in the Constitution, and that in that instrument there is significant reference also to “any agreement or compact with another State, or with a foreign Power” which it is declared that no State of the Union shall enter into without consent of Congress." ~
For further understanding on these matters a great deal of reading is necessary.
I would recommend you turn your attentions to historical interpretations or simply trust that your Supreme Court has a better understanding and that it's opinion on the Newlands Resolution stands.
BTW... you never did expound upon what your angle was with regard to UN resolution 742.
Here's a well laid out website that is complete with links, pertinent documentation regarding these matters and the court opinions backing the facts. No wild theories involved, attempts to get you foreclosed on or misleading notions that could result in causing you criminal legal issues.
Enjoy and be free because you already are.
http://big09a.angelfire.com/TreatyOfAnne...aiiUS.html
Posts: 3,212
Threads: 103
Joined: May 2009
Looks like the Sai/Conklin proxy war is in full swing.  As Kane said, lots of interesting reading if that's your thing.
As for the relevance of UN resolution 742, it was mentioned earlier: 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
Again, there is a high degree of interpretation when it comes to constitutional law, part of what makes the constitution still viable today and yet so maddeningly vague at times (don't get me started on the overly broad interpretation of the inter-state commerce clause).
The unique circumstances of Hawaii's annexation provide grounds for these debates of interpretation as the process wasn't strictly "by the book" or wholly "illegal." IMO gaining a better understanding of this background is useful so thanks to all for helping sort through it as the sovereignty issue progresses (forward? sideways? like a Texas two-step?
Posts: 2,377
Threads: 124
Joined: Jun 2009
ironyak,
UN resolution 742. Ah, the argument revolves around whether full measure of self governance is observed and then mistakenly assumed that a Statehood vote should have included an independence vote. When in theory the Republican form of government that took 2 years to set up between 1898 and 1900 and initiated in 1900 allowed them to vote for independence from 1900 up until 1959 when becoming a State of the Union yet at no time did they initiate and vote for independence within that 59 year time period. Though they had that power for 59 years they never chose to exercise it and somehow that is believed to mean it should have been included with the State vote as if an independence vote must be voted upon at some point... that argument makes no sense.
Is that the gist of it?
Aye... talk about a runaround in total nonsense.
Was the Territory of Hawaii ever on the UN list of territories that were not afforded a full measure of self governance?
Posts: 216
Threads: 5
Joined: Apr 2014
This is what I studied..."We need Hawai'i just as much and a deal more than we did California, it is Manifest Destiny"Senator William McKinley The Queen said this of the overthrow; it was fraud, it caused duress, they gave unconscionable consideration in taking resources without the right, not obeying or even recognizing the rule of law or equity, or did they follow the general principles of fair and honorable dealings between NATIONS. Short Overview of America's behavior AMERICA!!!!! They were:
Driven by the doctrine of Manifest Destiny, the United States embarked on a vigorous expansion across North America throughout the 19th century. This involved displacing American Indian tribes, acquiring new territories, and gradually admitting new states, until by 1848 the nation spanned the continent. during the second half of the 19th century, the American Civil War ended legal slavery in the country. By the end of that century, the United States extended into the Pacific Ocean, and its economy, driven in large part by the Industrial Revolution, began to soar. The Spanish–American War and World War I confirmed the country's status as a global military power. The United States emerged from World War II as a global "superpower", the first country to develop nuclear weapons, the only country to use them in warfare, and as a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council. The end of the Cold War and the dissolution of the Soviet Union left the United States as the world's sole superpower.
The Queen knew that's the way the British French and America played so she decided to do something different and if it works for the rest of the Nations of the world it should have worked for the Hawaiian Kingdom she knew that the only way her kingdom could have been overthrown was with the knowledge and aid of the government of the United States of America. So if you don't fight you don't get to negotiate a peace any treason take care of that to and send them packing these men were so ungrateful they some of them were raised by the very natives they now want to subjugate. But Americans most of them would rather rewrite history today in order not to do what's right and honorable which is take down your flag and go back to the minute prior to the gun that was held to the King head and forced to sign their constitution. Anybody want to debate me I will show you how these men stole the electric franchise and they are going to give it back how about that for a start?
This is how I feel how about all of you? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNNLChdAmdo
and then Hawaii "78" says it all.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qyQGn6E3Lcg&list=PL1-XH7VHXC5iupF4JX7k5lh84jZPOLFw2&index=8
Long Live the Hawaiian Kingdom!
Hawaii for Hawaiians!
Posts: 363
Threads: 1
Joined: Apr 2015
quote:
Originally posted by Wao nahele kane
(Joint resolution, executive agreement, treaty)
" What follows does not purport to be a discussion of Constitutional limitations upon the freedoms of the United States to exercise the power to enter into agreements with other countries with which it was endowed when it came into being as a new State after a successful revolution. As the topic indicates, the matter for consideration is a much narrower one, pertaining to the procedures by which the United States may and does, without constitutional hindrance, undertake, through particular agencies, to assume contractual obligations within that broad field where it is acknowledged to possess unfettered capacity to contract with foreign countries.
It is a striking fact that the fundamental law of the United States as exemplified in its Constitution contains little that is on its face mandatory in respect to method. Yet little means much. All are of course aware of the conditions to be met in the consummation of a “treaty” so-called, and of the requirement as to the advice and consent of the Senate. Yet it will be recalled that no definition of a treaty is to be found in the Constitution, and that in that instrument there is significant reference also to “any agreement or compact with another State, or with a foreign Power” which it is declared that no State of the Union shall enter into without consent of Congress." ~
For further understanding on these matters a great deal of reading is necessary.
I would recommend you turn your attentions to historical interpretations or simply trust that your Supreme Court has a better understanding and that it's opinion on the Newlands Resolution stands.
BTW... you never did expound upon what your angle was with regard to UN resolution 742.
Here's a well laid out website that is complete with links, pertinent documentation regarding these matters and the court opinions backing the facts. No wild theories involved, attempts to get you foreclosed on or misleading notions that could result in causing you criminal legal issues.
Enjoy and be free because you already are.
http://big09a.angelfire.com/TreatyOfAnne...aiiUS.html
I had this long response but decided to erase it because I feel the major issue that you are misinterpreting is the power of a joint resolution and that it had been established how a treaty should be ratified.
Show me one instance, besides Hawaii, where a joint resolution was used in place of a treaty where it gave America the ability to enforce US laws in another country. Texas would be another but as we know there is now a Treaty of Annexation.
Joint-resolutions can be used in place of treaty's but they can not be used to transfer sovereignty due to the fact that it is a unilateral and municipal act. It is not an act of the President, it is an act of congress. Therefore fails to comply not only with the US constitution but also violates the terms of the Treaty of Annexation presented by Hawaii. ARTICLE 7 stated, "This treaty shall be ratified by the President of the United States, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate". Ratified by the President, not by Congress.
Posts: 8,459
Threads: 1,032
Joined: May 2003
The Louisiana Purchase was a complete anomaly (then and now) and was, at the time, considered unconstitutional. It ultimately acquired what would be come fifteen states and two Canadian provinces by "purchase" from another country, France. I haven't seen too much on what the residents of that huge territory thought about it at the time. Perhaps they considered the U.S. preferable to France. Perhaps the change in "ownership" had so little effect on their day to day lives they didn't really care.
Perhaps the Louisiana Purchase set the precedent for the purchase of Alaska from Russia.
I have at times wondered what Hawaii's fate might have been if the Spanish had discovered it. The Spanish had been operating in the Pacific for a century or more prior to Cook's arrival in Hawaii. The Spanish were cruel masters.
Near as I have been able to determine there is only one county, Iceland, which does not have the taint of stolen land about it.
Assume the best and ask questions.
Punaweb moderator
Posts: 1,440
Threads: 4
Joined: Sep 2014
Kaimana,
i am quite surprised you haven't responded to my questions seeking to clarify and get to the heart of what you see as the very point of this persistent and very elaborate theoretical legal exercise as it relates to the realities of the actual present for the people of Hawaii. instead you jump right back into more of the same tangled legal picayune. ??
what is your point here?
Posts: 363
Threads: 1
Joined: Apr 2015
quote:
Originally posted by PunaMauka2
Kaimana,
i am quite surprised you haven't responded to my questions seeking to clarify and get to the heart of what you see as the very point of this persistent and very elaborate theoretical legal exercise as it relates to the realities of the actual present for the people of Hawaii. instead you jump right back into more of the same tangled legal picayune. ??
what is your point here?
What were your original questions?
Posts: 1,440
Threads: 4
Joined: Sep 2014
from recent posts:
"i would not enter with a legal argument here because to do so would be an exercise in theoretical futility. i see something fundamentally flawed and very troubling with this whole notion of arguing for a race-qualifying (or hereditary if you like) sovereignty power structure as you earlier outlined as a goal, if i understood you correctly."
"if i recall correctly you basically said the goal was a return of sovereignty to the "Hawaiian Kingdom", meaning the "Hawaiian people" (those alive today with a hereditary claim of an ancestral citizen of the Monarchy, "3 or 4 generations back should do it", as i believe you defined it) are to somehow decide, with absolutely no "outside" strings attached, the future form of government and basically the fate of everyone else from Hawaii or living here who doesn't qualify by the hereditary standards. any corrections you would like to make to that?"
-----------------
edit add: be back to read any response later. gotta go.
|
