TMT construction begins Monday 15 July

[kalakoa]

not knowing how the decommissioning will proceed due to a previous but very small spill

The delicious irony of this provides (me, at least) a moment of levity in what would otherwise be a completely depressing telescope saga.

[Kaimana]

quote:

---

Originally posted by ironyak

Again, the U.S. Supreme Court has already settled this in 2008/9 - the State of Hawaii owns title to the lands outright.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apology_Resolution
"The legal effect of the Apology Resolution was addressed in the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court of March 31, 2009, which held that the 37 "whereas" clauses of the Apology Resolution have no binding legal effect, nor does it convey any rights or make any legal findings for native Hawaiian claims. The Court concluded that the Resolution does not change or modify the "absolute" title to the public lands of the State of Hawai'i. The decision also affirmed that federal legislation cannot retroactively alter a title given as a part of statehood in general."

Or for more legal analysis - https://www.loc.gov/law/foreign-news/art...lic-lands/
"The Court said that neither of the two substantive provisions of the apology resolution – one that apologized for the role of the U.S. in overthrowing the Hawaiian monarchy, and another that disclaimed that the resolution served to settle any claims against the U.S. – affected Hawaii's right to sell the land granted it by the U.S. when Hawaii was admitted as a state."

---

Read their excuse about the "whereas" clauses and tell me that it makes any sense to you. Be honest. lol.

Now here's the legal definitions I could find for whereas "When whereas is placed at the beginning of a legislative bill, it means "because" and is followed by an explanation for the enactment of the legislation." " law- used at the beginning of an official document to mean ‘because of a particular fact’"

Also the Apology Resolution isn't even needed to prove they never annexed Hawaii. There is no treaty, congress has no power to annex a sovereign nation into the US as a territory and even if you want to make the argument that the joint resolution was advice and consent given to ratify the old treaties presented(which is something that not even the US argues) the Senate did not vote with 2/3rds consent of all Senators present(42 to 21, with 26 abstentions), which is explicitly stated as needed to ratify a treaty.

[TomK]

As an aside:

This "whereas" thing is so dated I can't believe it's still used. I'm a fan and also a previous funder of the "Plain English Campaign" which is mainly UK-orientated but has spread throughout the English-speaking world. If adopted, there would be so much less confusion.

I haven't tried it yet, but the Drivel Defence software package looks to be a useful tool if it wasn't written in Java...

http://www.plainenglish.co.uk/

[Kaimana]

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomK

As an aside:

This "whereas" thing is so dated I can't believe it's still used. I'm a fan and also a previous funder of the "Plain English Campaign" which is mainly UK-orientated but has spread throughout the English-speaking world. If adopted, there would be so much less confusion.

I haven't tried it yet, but the Drivel Defence software package looks to be a useful tool if it wasn't written in Java...

http://www.plainenglish.co.uk/

---

I agree wholeheartedly.

[HereOnThePrimalEdge]

Then it's conservation land and should not be destroyed.

Land designated Conservation District can be built on. I looked at a property that was designated conservation a few years ago. There is a 70 page booklet with rules and regulations, and a commission that reviews your proposal for building and approves or denies your application. There are rules, but building is allowed, even multiple buildings, fences, roads, etc.

[kalakoa]

There are rules, but building is allowed

Cell phone towers, too. Like the one the protestors are using. Which technology (and incursion onto the Sacred Mauna) is apparently acceptable to them when it is convenient, and despite the fact that the "rules" are promulgated by an "illegally occupying" government.

[ironyak]

Kaimana - Read their excuse about the "whereas" clauses and tell me that it makes any sense to you. Be honest. lol.

But of course Supreme Court findings are not subject to the review of your opinion or mine. Some opinions are far more equal than others.

Also the Apology Resolution isn't even needed to prove they never annexed Hawaii. There is no treaty, congress has no power to annex a sovereign nation into the US as a territory

When the sovereign nation is ceding the territory things are quite different. See South Carolina's ceding territory upon admission to the union, the Republic of Texas, etc... done through joint resolutions. More recently see the Vienna Convention for all the various means through which International agreements and laws are reached including through separate documents signifying the intent of both parties.

the Senate did not vote with 2/3rds consent of all Senators present(42 to 21, with 26 abstentions), which is explicitly stated as needed to ratify a treaty.

The argument that the U.S. Senate has not been counting votes correctly because it only requires a 2/3rds of yes votes (not 2/3rds of Senators "present" with some abstaining) is a new one to me. Be sure to let them know they've been doing it wrong for 225+ years - I'm sure they value your thoughts on the matter.
https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/his...eaties.htm

[kalakoa]

South Carolina's ceding territory upon admission to the union

Was it theirs to cede? Didn't they take it from the native peoples who were already living there? Is it acceptable because the lands were taken by force?

[kander]

Why is it that nobody talks about the Newlands Resolution which was when Hawaii was annexed. its also the primary reason the Hague refuses to do anything about the sovereignty issue. Because that was the defacto treaty of annexation that everyone brings up over and over.

[ironyak]

Because the Newlands Resolution was not a Treaty, but rather a Joint Resolution by Congress, which opponents say does not count (despite the other examples of territory being annexed through Joint Resolution).

As Supreme Court Justice Scalia noted, the U.S. Government went through "a process" in annexing the Republic of Hawaii (which is not subject to Supreme Court review at it is a "political question") in which the intent of both parties was made clear. This whole "you need to do it this way only" argument was, and still is, a minority legal opinion. Seems strange to hang so much on so little, instead of pursing rights enumerated in State law, but here we are.