TMT construction begins Monday 15 July

[HereOnThePrimalEdge]

Nancie Caraway wrote a generally thoughtful opinion piece, but wouldn't her argument be stronger if her supporting evidence and proofs hugged closer to the truth? I don't see that the examples she cites below are incorrect:

... characterizations of protectors in Star-Advertiser commentaries... claim Hawaiians... are hypocrites who drive cars and use cell phones, bully pro-Thirty Meter Telescope supporters, violate laws, show hostility to foreigners...

She goes on to suggest the Mauna Kea protestors are emulating a statement by Martin Luther King:
"dissenters against unjust laws “serve a higher principle of justice, concern for the welfare of the whole community”

Do the Mauna Kea protestors represent a vast majority of Hawaiians, as MLK did black people? Are TMT protestors spit on, sprayed with fire hoses, attracted by police dogs, thrown in jail? I think the comparison might be a stretch.

[rainyjim]

Enough bouncing and everything is connected. You are talking about events from over a hundred years ago. Make another thread. This thread is about something else.

[ironyak]

Thanks for the mini-modding advice rainyjim - I'm sure Rob will step in if needed. There have been several other threads on these topics - just answering the questions raised here. If you don't think the "no treaty of annexation" is central to what is happening on Mauna Kea then you've really not been keeping up.

@HOTPE - of course some people have made all those denigrating comments - plenty of them seen here. Same goes for the anti-TMT folks, regardless of what is espoused by the movement leaders. Is the MLK comparison a stretch, of course. Going to jail to demonstrate the injustice of the law, in order to get it changed, is part and parcel of civil disobedience. Being allowed to circumvent the law is something else entirely and will likely come back to bite everyone.

[kalakoa]

Make another thread.

I agree that you people should be allowed to have this discussion ... so long as you do it somewhere else away from my thread.

[ironyak]

Sue me

[Kaimana]

ironyak- I just want to make it clear, I'm not denying it passed as a simple majority, I'm denying the claim that it passed as advice and consent of all Senators present as prescribed in the US constitution to pass treaties. Also nobody is claiming it was a treaty, including the US, besides a few people on the fringe. Mahalo for the discussion, it's forced me to look into things even more.

rainyjim- e kala mai. It's just that one of the main, if not the main, arguments going on about the Mauna is who has legal claim to those lands. There's the ceded, state, dhhl, UH, conservation etc arguments but the annexation is also A HUGE question by most. In fact, if you were to poll everyone on the Mauna protesting, I'm willing to bet that over 80% would say the annexation never happened and we are being occupied.

[ironyak]

@Kaimana - I agree, it was not a treaty, however it did pass by exactly 2/3rds of the Senate according to their rules. You seem to be inferring that the 26 abstentions were definitely present and therefore should count. My point is that it is not clear if they were present or not (would be interesting to know) and even if so they still don't count regardless of your interpretation of the Constitution. (there are several interesting debates on this issue through the Congressional record, such as can a Constitution amendment be passed without a majority of the FULL congress) The Senate has defined majority requirements as present and voting - again see how voting "present" counts for quorum but not for tallying majorities (e.g. https://www.bustle.com/p/what-does-it-me...d-12178980)

Also, from the historical rules of the Senate at the time it appears that those 26 senators should have been required to vote "unless for special reasons he be excused by the Senate". Makes it all the more interesting in my mind.
https://www.rules.senate.gov/about/history (Rule XI)

Also agreed that for many involved, the notion of "an illegal" or "no treaty" annexation is central. My point is that it is built on a very narrow legal interpretation, which was already debated and voted down at the time and has only gotten weaker over the last 125+ years (State vote, Executive Orders, Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, etc).

[HereOnThePrimalEdge]

if you were to poll everyone on the Mauna protesting, I'm willing to bet that over 80% would say the annexation never happened

If you were to poll all Hawaii residents I bet 98% would say annexation did happen.
If you polled only Native Hawaiians I would bet a boatload of money a good sized majority would say annexation did happen.

So why allow a small minority to misinterpret 100 year old actions, subsequent laws and a vote for statehood for their own narrative?

[2liveque]

As my good Kia'i friends would say....

Please show me the treaty of Annexation.

forget the polls or possible polls, show the treaty. Does it exist? A joint resolution does not a treaty make.

...just sayin.

[ironyak]

But of course, their interpretation of the Constitution or the Newlands Resolution makes zero difference to its status as law. Just stop paying income tax and see if the Feds care about your or my personal opinion on the 19th Century U.S. Constitutional requirements for international agreements.

Or you could stop paying your mortgage, and advise others to do the same (and have your property repossessed or be convicted of a felony) . Again, personal opinions make no difference to those enforcing the law.
http://archives.starbulletin.com/1999/12...tory2.html
https://www.ilind.net/2019/05/11/two-sov...cue-fraud/