State Judge rules Hawaiian Kingdom still exists

[Wao nahele kane]

Pursuant to - meaning outlined by. And the same within that is applicable to State lands.

[Wao nahele kane]

quote:

---

Originally posted by 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.

---

Completely false and it oversteps the restriction set forth to "claims". Claims in the sense of areas within boundaries... land.

[Kaimana]

No it's not. Claims is in terms of actual ownership.

Show me one instance of it being interpreted the way you have interpreted it. You can't because you are misinterpreting it.

Property clause is a clause in the U.S. Constitution that empowers Congress to dispose of and make rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the U.S. government.

The U.S. government owns around 30% of the land within its territory.
http://definitions.uslegal.com/p/property-clause/

[Kaimana]

It has to do with making rules and regulations for territories.

Also has to do with not allowing the constitution to be used against Federal and State owned lands.

I mean look at where in the constitution its written. Its pretty obvious what it means.

[ironyak]

Kane - you seem to be going to great lengths to say that the US Supreme Court is unable to intervene. What about it simply overturning a previous ruling or revisiting a previous constitutional interpretation? This has happened before of course, why could it not happen in this case?

I would also note that others disagree that secession is not a possibility. In this view, sovereignty resides with the people, who institute and delegate powers to the government. They can always re-assume those powers if needed (this applies to a lot more than Hawaii issues of course)
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/a...ion-legal/

[Kaimana]

quote:

---

Originally posted by ironyak

Kane - you seem to be going to great lengths to say that the US Supreme Court is unable to intervene. What about it simply overturning a previous ruling or revisiting a previous constitutional interpretation? This has happened before of course, why could it not happen in this case?

I would also note that others disagree that secession is not a possibility. In this view, sovereignty resides with the people, who institute and delegate powers to the government. They can always re-assume those powers if needed (this applies to a lot more than Hawaii issues of course)
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/a...ion-legal/

---

Because he's misinterpreting the clause. Plain and simple. He thinks that because of the one clause, the US Congress can do what ever it wants without it being bound by the constitution. Which is nonsensical. A clause IN THE CONSTITUTION gives it leeway to disregard all of the boundaries set IN THE CONSTITUTION. It makes no sense. There has never been an interpretation of the clause like this other than his own.

He doesn't understand that the constitution was formed to protect the people from the government and not the other way around.

[ironyak]

Originally posted by Kaimana
No we wouldn't have been the minority in the 1880's.
The last census done in the Hawaiian Kingdom in 1890 listed the entire population at 89,990.
Hawaiian nationals 48,107
Aliens 41,873

Setting aside some of the complications from the 1887 constitution and the land ownership requirements that would affect voting rights, my point was that in general from annexation on, Native Hawaiians have been a voting minority hence trying to address changes through a referendum would be difficult.

However, your numbers raise an interesting question - if Hawaiian Nationals were a large voting block, where is the history of attempts to restore the Kingdom other than the rebellion of 1895? From almost the beginning of the Territory of Hawaii there were several tries made for Statehood. Is there a similar, but lesser known, history of repeated attempts at sovereignty?
http://statehoodhawaii.org/hist/sctl.html

ETA fixed rebellion date typo - thanks

[grsjax]

There was at least one attempt to overthrow the Republic lead by Robert Wilcox. I believe that was in 1895.



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

[Kaimana]

quote:

---

Originally posted by ironyak

Originally posted by Kaimana
No we wouldn't have been the minority in the 1880's.
The last census done in the Hawaiian Kingdom in 1890 listed the entire population at 89,990.
Hawaiian nationals 48,107
Aliens 41,873

Setting aside some of the complications from the 1887 constitution and the land ownership requirements that would affect voting rights, my point was that in general from annexation on, Native Hawaiians have been a voting minority hence trying to address changes through a referendum would be difficult.

However, your numbers raise an interesting question - if Hawaiian Nationals were a large voting block, where is the history of attempts to restore the Kingdom other than the rebellion of 1885? From almost the beginning of the Territory of Hawaii there were several tries made for Statehood. Is there a similar, but lesser known, history of repeated attempts at sovereignty?
http://statehoodhawaii.org/hist/sctl.html

---

The problem is that we were indoctrinated to believe that we were legally annexed. There have been cases where people brought this to light but they've been shot down without a real look at the arguments at hand.

Also once the US claimed it as a territory there was no way to overthrow the US military. They were too powerful. Now before people twist this as an instance of conquest, it isn't. There was no war declared and no cession of sovereignty involved.

Also once the US claimed Hawaii they immediately began importing US civilians to the point that they became the majority which skewed any voting that was done.

[Wao nahele kane]

Kaimana,
You are misinterpreting what I've expressed.