State Judge rules Hawaiian Kingdom still exists

[Kapoho Joe]

a new slant on an old song (played on the uke of course)

you can check out anytime you like

BUT YOU CAN NEVER LEAVE!

[Kaimana]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wao nahele kane

Kaimana,
The US Constitution cannot be used to provide legal grounds to determine an illegal occupation by the U.S. in Hawaii. I've tried to point this out before but you're not willing to recognize the total impact regarding Article 3 section 4 last sentence and are relying on a title that was later given to the section by virtue of it past uses in legal matters and not its ultimate broader impact meaning.
The challenge you cite is not recognizable by our Constitution as it gave absolute authority to the Newlands Resolution and the act of indoctrinating the State as not questionable and permanently binding. Our Constitution stipulates that it can give no quarter to challenges against U.S. and State claims in these matters.

---

You are just simply wrong about article 3 section 4. You are giving it power that it does not have, just like you are giving Congress powers that it does not have.

Show me one person who has authority on the issue that agrees with your interpretation of article 3 section 4.

[Kaimana]

The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

You realize when that when states enter into the union the federal government doesn't claim its land right? This is dealing with lands that are actually owned by the federal government. National parks etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_lands

As you can see the red is what this clause is dealing with not what you are misinterpreting it to deal with.

[grsjax]

I don't think so. The writ of mandamus was requested to force Cardoza to dismiss the case because he had given judicial notice to the existence of the Kingdom of Hawaii. By dismissing the plea the Hawaiian Supreme Court was saying that that wasn't a valid argument. An alternate explanation might be that the court felt the judicial notice not significant in any legal sense and therefor immaterial to the case. Same result in any case. This sets a precedence for Hawaiian courts that judicial notice of the kingdom Is not going to get you much in the way of judicial relief.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaimana

So what I'm reading from this is that they said it wasn't enough to dismiss the case, but the judicial notice still stands?

---

No matter how thin you slice it, its still balony.

[Kaimana]

"I don't think so. The writ of mandamus was requested to force Cardoza to dismiss the case because he had given judicial notice to the existence of the Kingdom of Hawaii. By dismissing the plea the Hawaiian Supreme Court was saying that that wasn't a valid argument. An alternate explanation might be that the court felt the judicial notice not significant in any legal sense and therefor immaterial to the case. Same result in any case. This sets a precedence for Hawaiian courts that judicial notice of the kingdom is not binding on anyone."

But the Supreme Court didn't say judicial notice was rescinded or that they couldn't use it as a defense. It only said that the strength of their argument to dismiss wasn't strong enough.

[grsjax]

A valid point, one that will need clarification by a direct challenge to resolve. I don't think it would prevail but I would like to see a serious attempt to have the courts recognize the Kingdom of Hawaii just to clear up that particular point.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaimana

"I don't think so. The writ of mandamus was requested to force Cardoza to dismiss the case because he had given judicial notice to the existence of the Kingdom of Hawaii. By dismissing the plea the Hawaiian Supreme Court was saying that that wasn't a valid argument. An alternate explanation might be that the court felt the judicial notice not significant in any legal sense and therefor immaterial to the case. Same result in any case. This sets a precedence for Hawaiian courts that judicial notice of the kingdom is not binding on anyone."

But the Supreme Court didn't say judicial notice was rescinded or that they couldn't use it as a defense. It only said that the strength of their argument to dismiss wasn't strong enough.

---

No matter how thin you slice it, its still balony.

[Kaimana]

A valid point, one that will need clarification by a direct challenge to resolve. I don't think it would prevail but I would like to see a serious attempt to have the courts recognize the Kingdom of Hawaii just to clear up that particular point.

It's just weird situation overall imo. It's almost like they can't outright refute the claims but they also can't confirm the claims due to the huge implications attached to it.

Normally the argument has gotten thrown out before getting to this point.

[Wao nahele kane]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaimana

The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

You realize when that when states enter into the union the federal government doesn't claim its land right? This is dealing with lands that are actually owned by the federal government. National parks etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_lands

As you can see the red is what this clause is dealing with not what you are misinterpreting it to deal with.

---

Incorrect. Note the use of the semi colon followed by the conjunction "and"? This in itself indicates a strong separation between the proceeding aspects of the sentence content to that of the following content with respect to the semicolon.

In other words the sentence begins by outlining the Congressional role over territories and properties belonging to the United States giving it the power to dispose of and make all Rules and regulations over them. The second aspect of the sentence goes on to make no mistake that any part of the Constitution can be used to prejudice any claims by States or the Untied States.

The range in meaning of the word "claims" is restricted to those areas as so outlined by the said entities physical border. No part of the Constitution may be construed as to prejudice those areas within the claimed borders. This not only protects the claims of the U.S. within the confines of State borders it likewise protects the State claims of those areas outside the U.S. claimed boundaries but within the States boundaries, therefore separating Congressional jurisdictions from State jurisdictions. Thus disallowing not only Congress but also the Supreme Court the authority to prejudice States Sovereignty as delegated by the Constitution. To consider legally questioning that sovereignty is to prejudice a States claims.
Like wise to question the previous territory of Hawaii claim by the U.S. is to prejudice its former claims.

What's done is done in that respect and not up for revaluation.

[Kaimana]

Federal lands are lands in the United States for which ownership is claimed by the U.S. federal government, pursuant to Article Four, section 3, clause 2 of the United States Constitution.

[Kaimana]

Again if you interpret it the way you are then the constitution itself holds no weight what so ever. You could never argue anything was unconstitutional.