Monday Town Hall with Ruggles

[riversnout]

quote:

---

Originally posted by randomq

Did the Tahitians acquire Hawaii legally from the original Hawaiians? Did Kamehameha legally acquire all of the islands from the other Kings?

Would a war have been more valid in your eyes than a nearly bloodless coup?

---

Did the Tahitians sign the Geneva and Hague conventions?

[riversnout]

quote:

---

Originally posted by HereOnThePrimalEdge

...This is one of those situations where any law I would pick out to prove the Hawaiian Kingdom may have no present day standing...

---

Go right ahead and show me such a law. It would be a good start for you as you have provided nothing yet.

[riversnout]

quote:

---

Originally posted by MarkD

Well explained arguments, HOTPE.

---

I guess I missed the factual arguments.

[HereOnThePrimalEdge]

I guess I missed the factual arguments.

Here is a simple, well stated explanation, probably better than I could do:

Hawaii’s government, which controlled the territory and was recognized by the same states that recognized the Kingdom of Hawaii, agreed to the terms of the treaty. Similarly, the Senate voted by a two-thirds majority to annex Hawaii under the same terms that Hawaii agreed to be annexed. Those are the only conditions for a valid treaty: an agreement between the United States and a foreign state that the Senate ratifies by a two-thirds vote.

Both the United States government and the government in control of Hawaii (the Hawaiian government, for lack of a better term) agreed to the annexation in fact and in spirit, and both acted as if they were bound by the agreement. How the nations arrived at the end goal is of little concern, since formal requirements have changed over the 117 years since annexation.
https://www.civilbeat.org/2015/07/the-myth-of-hawaiis-illegal-annexation/

On Tuesday night, 9/18/2018 Hawaii Senator Mazie Hirono had another message for the Republican senators on the Judiciary Committee “Just shut up and step up. Do the right thing.” She added in another related comment, “Bull$hit.”

[mikewj]

Lots of esoteric argument here. Can we simplify? When Jan was running for office, I liked what she said. Couldn't vote for her, not in my District.
I respect her right to a personal opinion. However, if the opinion prevents her from carrying out the duties of her office, She should stand down. In my mind it is wrong to take money for a job which you have no intention of doing. Her feelings about the Hawaiian Kingdom have no bearing on this point. Can, no can; do or don't do. As grandma said, "S**t or get off the pot".
If the matter is resolved to her satisfaction she can run again for office.

[riversnout]

quote:

---

Originally posted by HereOnThePrimalEdge

[i]Hawaii’s government, which controlled the territory and was recognized by the same states that recognized the Kingdom of Hawaii, agreed to the terms of the treaty.

---

nice try, but now who is ignoring facts?

https://hawaiiankingdom.org/blog/the-que...m-in-1895/

On October 18th 1893, the U.S. government concluded an investigation of its role in the overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom government, and negotiation for settlement with Queen Lili`uokalani began on November 13th 1893 at the U.S. Legation in Honolulu.At this meeting, U.S. Minister Albert Willis notified the Queen of the “President’s sincere regret that, through the unauthorized intervention of the United States, she had been obliged to surrender her sovereignty, and his hope that, with her consent and cooperation, the wrong done to her and to her people might be redressed.” Willis then asked, by direction of the President, “Should you be restored to the throne, would you grant full amnesty as to life and property to all those persons who have been or who are now in the Provisional Government, or who may have been instrumental in the overthrow of your government.” In this initial meeting, the Queen refused to grant amnesty, but after several additional meetings with Willis she accepted the conditions of restoration and she signed a declaration on December 18th 1893, which was forwarded to Secretary of State Walter Gresham on December 20th. The Congress was notified of this agreement on January 13th 1894 by Presidential message.Therefore, by virtue of this executive agreement, the President, and his successors in office, remain legally bound to restore the Hawaiian Kingdom government and to return the executive power to Hawai`i’s chief executive.

[MarkD]

The passage of 117 years is the major factor here. If we were to go back 125-200 years ago, we would find that many parts of the world (nations today) had recently gone through one or more of the following:

a) occupation by long-range outsiders, often Europeans on ships,

b) extremely violent invasions from neighboring cultures/civilizations;

c) having no sense of nationhood--being a constellation of regularly warring tribes not yet under control of a central government;

d) highly destructive civil wars;

e) frequently shifting borders and frequently shifting governments.

It is true that the takeover of Hawaii occurred a bit later than the era of the formation of modern nations, but it is still sufficiently far back that we cannot consider that event to be judged by modern standards of international law.

[HereOnThePrimalEdge]

Her feelings about the Hawaiian Kingdom have no bearing on this point. Can, no can; do or don't do.

Her meeting in Keaau was ostensively so she could explain to constituents why she is not attending to her duties as councilperson. Very little time was allotted for discussion about her role as councilperson, in fact she didn't allow any questions concerning that topic until the last few minutes at the end of the meeting. And even then most questions and the discussion concerned the Hawaiian Kingdom, which as far as I can tell is an unstructured entity in which she holds no position. Like heaven. Without the Father, Son, Holy Ghost, St. Peter, or angels.

Almost all of the meeting (but not all Kirt) was an infomercial for Dr. Sai.

On Tuesday night, 9/18/2018 Hawaii Senator Mazie Hirono had another message for the Republican senators on the Judiciary Committee “Just shut up and step up. Do the right thing.” She added in another related comment, “Bull$hit.”

[HereOnThePrimalEdge]

December 18th 1893, which was forwarded to Secretary of State Walter Gresham on December 20th. The Congress was notified of this agreement on January 13th 1894

Yes, but...
Liliuokalani signed a formal abdication in 1895 but continued to appeal to U.S. President Grover Cleveland for reinstatement, without success. The United States annexed Hawaii in 1898.

On Tuesday night, 9/18/2018 Hawaii Senator Mazie Hirono had another message for the Republican senators on the Judiciary Committee “Just shut up and step up. Do the right thing.” She added in another related comment, “Bull$hit.”

[riversnout]

quote:

---

Originally posted by HereOnThePrimalEdge

Yes, but...
Liliuokalani signed a formal abdication in 1895 but continued to appeal to U.S. President Grover Cleveland for reinstatement, without success. The United States annexed Hawaii in 1898.

---

ok

https://hawaiiankingdom.org/blog/the-que...m-in-1895/

the Queen was not an absolute Monarch, but rather a constitutional monarch limited and confined to Hawaiian law as the Chief Executive, which was distinct from the Judicial and Legislative branches of Hawaiian government. The Queen, as Chief Executive, could no more terminate the Hawaiian Kingdom by threat of insurgents, than the President, as Chief Executive of the United States, could terminate the Republic by threat of terrorists.

So according to this logic, if terrorists somehow kidnap the President of the United States and have him sign an abdication of the Republic of the United States and recognizes Al Qaeda as the lawful government in order to save the lives of some of his countrymen, the United States of America ceases to exist?