On Annexation of Hawaii, Scalia Fails Constitutionality Test
A joint resolution of Congress doesn't empower the United States to acquire another country. Only a treaty can do that.
In Civil Beat recently, Justice Antonin Scalia, associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, made two critical points on the annexation of Hawaii: First, he stated that a joint resolution of the United States could acquire the territory of Hawaii — a foreign, sovereign and independent nation state. Second, he stated that the Constitution permitted the use of a joint resolution instead of a treaty.
He was wrong on both points.
First, a joint resolution is merely a law, an act of Congress. It has no power to acquire the territory of a foreign, sovereign state. If such a thing were possible, Hawaii itself could have, by an act of its Legislature, acquired the United States. Second, the only mode by which the United States could acquire Hawaii, an independent and sovereign nation like the United States, would be by treaty.
Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States
In answering a student’s question regarding the United States’ annexation of Hawaii, Supreme Court Justice Scalia overlooked important constitutional provisions.
Second, the acquisition of Hawaii by a joint resolution of Congress would undermine the Constitution. The use of a joint resolution in place of a treaty would be an “end run” around an enumerated power — the power over foreign affairs that is delegated solely to the president and the Senate. The House has no power as to foreign affairs and does not vote on or ratify treaties.
Moreover, the use of joint resolution to accomplish a treaty with a foreign sovereign undermines the super-majority required of the Senate as to the ratification of treaties. The Senate must ratify such measures by a two-thirds majority of those Senators present.
This is made clear in the U.S. Constitution, Article II, Clause 2: “[The President] shall have the Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur …”
The inability of President William McKinley to garner the necessary two-thirds vote in the Senate to ratify the Treaty of Annexation of 1897 led the administration to seek annexation by a mere act of Congress — a joint resolution. The administration could pass a joint resolution but not a treaty. This is precisely why McKinley attempted to annex by joint resolution.
President William McKinley, whose administration sought the annexation of Hawaii.
Many are ignorant of or deceived about the joint resolution and the acquisition of Hawaii. Many do not know the specifics of the U.S. Constitution or the history of Hawaii. Yet, we expect more from Justice Scalia, for he has great power over the future of Native Hawaiians. His exchange with Jacob Bryan Aki, as published in Civil Beat, showed a surprising lack of constitutional knowledge. Aki, a Hawaiian student at George Washington University, asked Justice Scalia the following question during a class visit to the Supreme Court on Feb. 11:
“Does the Constitution provide Congress the power to annex a foreign nation through a joint resolution rather than a treaty?”
Scalia answered by first turning the question back at Aki. “Why would a treaty be needed,” he asked. “There is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits Congress from annexing a foreign state through the means of a joint resolution. If the joint resolution is passed through both the U.S. House and Senate, then signed by the president, it went through a ‘process.’ ”
Allen et al. vs. Scalia
Let us pretend that Scalia was on the floor of the U.S. Senate in the summer of 1898. Sen. William V. Allen of Nebraska and others would have reminded him that a joint resolution is only an act of Congress. It has no power to reach out and acquire foreign territory or a foreign country.
“A joint resolution if passed becomes a statute law. It has no other or greater force. It is the same as if it were entitled ‘an act.’ That is its legal classification,” said Allen. “It is therefore impossible for the government of the United States to reach across its boundaries into the dominion of another government and annex that government or the persons or property therein.
“But the United States may do so under the treaty making power, which I shall hereafter consider.”
In addition, Allen said, “Mr. President, how can a joint resolution such as this be operative? What is the legislative jurisdiction of Congress? Does it extend over Hawaii? May we in this anticipatory manner reach out beyond the sea and assert our authority under a resolution of Congress within the confines of that independent nation? Where is our right, our grant of power, to do this? Where do we find it?
“The joint resolution itself, it is admitted, amounts to nothing so far as carrying any effective force is concerned. It does not bring that country within our boundaries. It does not consummate itself.”
Moreover, Sen. Thomas Turley of Tennessee stated:
“It is admitted that if the Joint Resolution is adopted, the Republic of Hawaii can determine whether or not it will accept the provisions contained in the joint resolution. In other words, the adoption of the resolution does not consummate the transaction.
“The Republic of Hawaii does not become a part or the territory of the United States by the adoption of the joint resolution …”
Sen. John Coit Spooner of Wisconsin added his view: “Of course, our power would not be extraterritorial.”
United States Library of Congress
Sen. A.O. Bacon, who questioned the constitutionality of the United States’ proposed annexation of Hawaii.
Sen. A.O. Bacon of Georgia made the same point: “Under the law of the equal sovereignty of states, one independent and sovereign nation such as the United States cannot take another nation, such as Hawaii, by means or its own legislative act.”
Bacon noted that if the United States could take Hawaii by joint resolution, it could so take Jamaica. If that were true, any nation could acquire any other. Hawaii could annex the United States. “If the President of the United States can do it in the case of Hawaii, he can with equal propriety and legality do it in the case of Jamaica …”
Sen. Stephen White of California noted annexation by joint resolution was unprecedented: in American history: “… there is no instance where by a joint resolution it has been attempted not only to annex a foreign land far remote from our shores, but also to annihilate a nation, to withdraw it from the sovereign societies of the world as a government.”
On the issue of the constitutionality of the use of a joint resolution, Bacon made it clear: Hawaii could only be acquired by a Treaty. “If Hawaii is to be annexed, it ought certainly to be annexed by a constitutional method; and if by a constitutional method, it cannot be annexed, no Senator ought to desire its annexation.”
Finally, Bacon — one of the most senior members of the Senate — predicted that the annexation of Hawaii by joint resolution would do great damage to the Constitution and the Union.
“If we pass the joint resolution, we enter upon a revolution which shall convert this country from a peaceful country into a warlike country. If we pass the resolution, we transform this country from one engaged in its own concerns into one which shall immediately proceed to intermeddle with the concerns of all the world.
“If we pass the joint resolution, we inaugurate a revolution which shall convert this country from one designed for the advancement and the prosperity and the happiness of our citizens into one which shall seek its gratification in dominion and domination and foreign acquisition.”
Native Hawaiians have forgotten that many Americans stood with them in 1898. After all, the Treaty of 1897, the only legal means for taking Hawaii, failed not because the Senate of the Republic of Hawaii failed to ratify the Treaty. It was the United States Senate that did not ratify the Treaty.
In conclusion, the joint resolution could not acquire Hawaii. Moreover, it was unconstitutional. Justice Scalia’s comments are evidence of the pervasive and widespread falsehoods as to annexation that have spread to the highest political and judicial offices in the United States. The myth of annexation is a deliberate deception that has oppressed the people of Hawaii for 122 years.
Historic quotes above are from Volume 31 of the Congressional Record pages 6142 to 6712, the verbatim record of the Senate debate in 1898.
About the Author
CONTRIBUTOR
Williamson Chang
Kama Ki · Following · Top Commenter · Owner at Kamaki's Authentic Hawaiian AdventuresHey Conklin, Kuroiwa, et al;
If I stole your car and repainted it, switched plates, forged title and registration documents, and drove it all over Honolulu, even parking it in your personal parking stall whenever I please whose car is it yours or mine?
Did anyone ever teach you right from wrong, or do you aspire to don Scalia's dirty robe? Spare me your barrage of pseudo legal speak and get real. Truth before fiction, fact before fantasy. You can cite all the laws you like from here to "Kingdom" come... Nothing you can say or do Regarding this issue will ever suffice to make it right.
You can never stand in the light until you step out of the darkness. You make a mockery of the obvious and it is not pleasing to watch.
Jr Kuroiwa · Top Commenter · University of Hawaii at ManoaKama Ki, I’m responding to you as you challenged our moral Hawaiian standards. To steal a car? To repaint, switch plates, and forged title and registration? If it was done by my Hawaiian family member, it would shame our family name. Kama, if you are saying the United States stole the Kingdom of Hawaii on January 17, 1893, it is all fiction. The subjects of the Kingdom, as the Committee of Safety, removed the Queen from her throne and removed her appointed Cabinet. No one else. The remaining government, the elected Nobles and Representatives, were left in place. The Committee of Safety, became the Provisional Government of the Hawaiian Islands. The security for the Committee of Safety were all former members of the Kingdom’s National Guard, known as the Honolulu Rifles that Kalakaua disbanded in 1890. Kama, all the information are recorded in history for all to read and understand. And, I do love to stand in the light and stand in Hawaii’s sun. I would never mock my Kanaka Maoli family.
Amelia Gora · Works at Self-EmployedJr Kuroiwa sad to see that many kanaka maoli don't know the true history....know that Premeditation has been uncovered which shows the conspiracies, the pillaging, piracy of a neutral, friendly, non-violent nation by broke ass/bankrupt nations including the U.S. and England....readhttp://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9F0CE6DC1F3FEF33A2575AC0A9679C94629ED7CF for starters then read all 537 issues of the IOLANI - The Royal Hawk news on the web theiolani.blogspot.com or accelerate your learning by reading the latest Legal Notice to President Obama, Governor Ige, et. als. because the Royal Families still exist...the land owners, the true Hawaiian Kingdom exists whether anybody likes it or not...and are the only parties to the permanent Treaty of 1850 at http://theiolani.blogspot.com/2015/03/special-posting-saturday-3715.html oh by the way Scalia is bound by the U.S. Constitution because the treaty supersedes State, Federal laws....and it was locked in place before the usurpation of the American people as documented by the bankers Secret Constitution in 1871 with the information thanks to and by whistle blowers Karen Hudes, World Bank; Vladimir Putin, Russia - who denounces One World Order/New World Order, etc. which can be seen at http://maoliworld.ning.com/forum/topics/updated-chronological-history-of-our-queen-liliuokalani-by-amelia and http://maoliworld.ning.com/forum/topics/updated-chronological-history-of-our-queen-liliuokalani-by-amelia by the way appears that my letter is the only one on the whitehouse website http://www.whitehouse.gov/assets/formsubmissions/54/c1dc2d2b35964f0392b21da2d9b05b42.pdf bet you that even you don't know that the U.S.A. became the U.S. and the American Empire documented in court case Peacock vs. the Republic of Hawaii in 1899.....bet you didn't know that the treasonous persons/conspirators/pirates /pillagers also placed Queen Liliuokalani back on the throne for a day in 1915 to celebrate the European's Balboa who visited the Pacific Ocean in 1514, etc....... empower yourself with knowledge, then blast the hell out of those who lie.......and by the way spread the truth and deny that the entity House of Representatives turned conspirator, treasonous persons supported by the U.S. and the American Empire, turned Provisional government, then Republic of Hawaii, then Territory of Hawaii, and State of Hawaii by U.S. President Eisenhower's executive order, are successors to our Hawaiian Kingdom as claimed in "THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF THE TERRITORY OF HAWAII TO REGISTER AND CONFIRM ITS TITLE TO CERTAIN LAND SITUATE IN LAHAINA, ISLAND OF MAUI, TERRITORY OF HAWAII, AND KNOWN AS PA PELEKANE" (1912), HAWAII REPORTS Vol 21, Supreme Court of Hawaii, RH 345.4 H32 v.21 pg. 177
"That the Territory, as successor to the Kingdom of Hawaii, has obtained title to this lot by prescription."
There was no treaty of Annexation, the Kamehameha III - Kauikeaouli's heirs and successors exists and are parties to the 1850 Treaty of the Hawaiian Kingdom and the United States of America....,. ;) Many nations are watching us because we're from a neutral, friendly, non-violent nation and we're surrounded by Pirates/Pillagers etc....wicked lot.... aloha.........the best to Kanaka Maoli, Konohiki, Assistant Konohiki, and Friends
Kealii Makekau · Top Commenter · School of Hard Knocks, The University of LifeI totally see the justices point as he's laid it out;.
Why would a treaty be needed,” he asked. “There is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits Congress from annexing a foreign state through the means of a joint resolution. If the joint resolution is passed through both the U.S. House and Senate, then signed by the president, it went through a ‘process.’ ”.
Exactly the process was between the republic of hawaii and the united states. A treaty could not be reached so a joint resolution was put fourth instead, of course it makes sense because one side.
the republic" is desperate and will do anything to give itself to the u.s.a and the U.S doesn't really care on how they receive the goods they just received it and passed something "JR" in the books saying ok we got it and thus we will take care of it.
NOW WHY could and did ... See More- Kama Ki · Following · Top Commenter · Owner at Kamaki's Authentic Hawaiian AdventuresDonning a robe and looking down ones nose does not constitute the validity expected and required of such a position of authority any more than a joint resolution can designate ownership of a foreign sovereign state. A putrid excuse from a corrupted source does not the truth make.
Kai Landow · Following · Top CommenterOf course there was no annexation and where is the proof? In 1946 the United States was required to report its list of non self governing territories. This is why Hawai'i was on the Decolonization list until the plebiscite in 1959. The history of this shows an admission of fact by the United States that Hawai'i was not annexed. I wonder why we are bogged down with this point? We can move on and ask why the United Nations accepted the communication from the Americans on the status of their trusteeship in 1959, that was clearly manipulated. Arguing this point, annexation, that is long settled, may damage our effort to liberate Ko Hawai'i Pae Aina. I feel if we reopen this issue we have won then we give ammunition to the occupying nation. The question presented to courts of remedy will not address this issue, as it no lon... See More
Williamson Chang · Princeton UniversityDear Dr. Conklin:
The Joint Resolution was not capable of ratifying the Treaty of 1897. The Treaty of 1897, drafted by representatives of both the Republic of Hawaii and the United States specified the manner in which the Treaty was to be ratified by both countries: Article VII of the Treaty states:
ARTICLE VII.
This treaty shall be ratified by the President of the United States, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, on the one part; and by the President of the Republic of Hawaii, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, in accordance with the constitution of said Republic, on the other; and the ratifications hereof shall be exchanged at Washington as soon as possible.
In witness whereof the respective plenipotentiaries have signed the above articles and have hereunto affixed their seals.
Done in duplicate at the city of Washington, this sixteenth day of June, one thousand eight hundred and ninety-seven.
Article VII is an agreement between the United States and the Republic of Hawaii that ratification shall take only a certain form: The United States shall ratified by “the President of the United States, and with the advice and consent of the Senate,”... This phrase clearly refers to Article II of the United States Constitution which provides as follows:
Article II, Section 2 [1] He [The President of the United States] shall have the power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties , provided two thirds of the Senators present concur,...”.
When a treaty, as agreed to by two nations, specifies the means of ratification, the parties must ratify in the manner so specified. A treaty is not deemed ratified unless done so by the terms both nations agreed. The Joint Resolution is an act of Congress, a law and mere legislation. The Joint Resolution required a majority vote of the House to pass. It went on to the Senate where it only required a majority vote to pass. Whether or not it received a two thirds vote is irrelevant. Article II, Section 2, [1] makes clear that the House does not participate in the ratification of a treaty with a foreign power—except in the case of a treaty by which Congress directly admits a foreign state as State in the Union. This was the case as to Texas.
Most important, the Republic of Hawaii did not consider the Joint Resolution to be ratification of the Treaty of 1897. The Republic of Hawaii considered the terms of the Joint Resolution to vary significantly, by the interpretation of the Republic of Hawaii, from the terms of the Treaty of Hawaii. These two instruments, the Treaty of 1897 and the Joint Resolution were different documents, with different meanings. A treaty is formed only when both nations have a perfect meeting of the minds—usually when both agree to the same document.
The Republic of Hawaii made its objection to the use of the Joint Resolution as ratification, which the United States claimed very clear. The letters from A.S. Hartwell, Special Envoy of the Republic of Hawaii that Hartwell sent to President McKinley in October of 1899 make clear that the Republic did not consider the Joint Resolution of Annexation to constitute ratification of the Treaty of 1897. In this first quote, Hartwell points out, as of October 25, 1899, that ratification by the United States did not ratify the Treaty. This statement was made long after the Joint Resolution became effective, July 7, 1898. Thus, the Republic did not consider the Joint Resolution be a ratification of the Treat.
Under the authority given to the President of Hawaii by the Hawaiian constitution, to negotiate a treaty of political union with the United States, subject to ratification by the Hawaiian Senate, such a treaty was negotiated and signed by the authorized plenipotentiaries of each country, and was ratified by the Hawaiian Senate but not by the United States Senate. Consequently, that instrument failed to accomplish or to become evidence of a cession of Hawaii to the United States.
See Letter of Alfred S. Hartwell, Special Agent of the Government of Hawaii in Washington D.C. to President McKinley, October 25, 1899. [From the Manuscript Collection the Papers of A.S. Hartwell, Archives of State of Hawaii].
General Hartwell specifically noted in his letter to President McKinley that the Joint Resolution was not a ratification:
Upon the enactment of the Newlands resolution in the place of a ratified treaty, and its full equivalent, I respectfully submit that something was required in the nature of a ratification whereby official notice could be given to Hawaii that the United States had agreed upon annexation.
The inchoate treaty provided in its seventh article for an exchange of ratifications “at Washington as soon as possible,” Until such exchange, or something equivalent to it, there could be no cession accomplished by mutual agreement.
See Letter of Alfred S. Hartwell, Special Agent of the Government of Hawaii in Washington D.C. to President McKinley, October 25, 1899. [From the Manuscript Collection the Papers of A.S. Hartwell, Archives of State of Hawaii].
The Treaty of 1897 was laid before the United States Senate during the fall of 1897. It was not withdrawn by the President. It still lay before the United States Senate in July of 1898 when the Senate debated the Joint Resolution. So long as the Treaty lay before the Senate, as ratified by the Senate of the Republic of Hawaii on September 9, 1897,—ratification according to Article VII of the Treaty was the only means by which the United States could conclude that treaty with the Republic of Hawaii.
Any other means, such as the use of a Joint Resolution is ruled out by the language the United States, itself, agreed to. Moreover, the use of the Joint Resolution violates the enumerated powers allocated over foreign affairs to the President and the United States Senate. Lastly, the last requirement of Article VII was never completed. There never was an exchange of ratifications in Washington as required by Article VII.
A.S. Hartwell, on behalf of the Republic of Hawaii pointed out to President McKinley that the terms of the Treaty of 1897 and the Joint Resolution of 1898 differed a to a critical term. As such, the two instruments have different terms. The Treaty of 1897 and the Joint Resolution cannot be combined to form a single Treaty. Hartwell pointed out that the treaty proposed June 16, 1897 and the Joint Resolution differed as to material terms:
The Treaty in its first article declares that “all the territory of and appertaining to the Republic of Hawaii is hereby annexed to the United States of America under the name of the Territory of Hawaii;” thus securing to Hawaii a distinct political status which is not secured by the wording in the Newlands resolution.
See Letter of Alfred S. Hartwell, Special Agent of the Government of Hawaii in Washington D.C. to President McKinley, October 25, 1899. [From the Manuscript Collection the Papers of A.S. Hartwell, Archives of State of Hawaii].
In conclusion, the Joint Resolution of 1898 30 Stat 750, did not ratify the Treaty of Annexation 1897 [June 16, 1897].
Very truly yours,
Williamson Chang,
Professor of Law, University of Hawaii at Manoa.
William S. Richardson School of Law.- Jr Kuroiwa · Top Commenter · University of Hawaii at ManoaMahalo Professor Chang, in confirming the existence of the Republic of Hawaii as an independent Nation (July 4, 1894), the submittal and approval of the Republic of Hawaii’s Treaty of Annexation to U.S. President McKinley (June 16, 1897), the approval of President McKinley’s signed Republic of Hawaii’s Treaty of Annexation by the Republic of Hawaii’s Senate (August 9, 1897), and that President McKinley left the Republic of Hawaii’s Treaty of Annexation with the U.S. Senate. The Spanish – American War changed Hawaiian history when the War presented the critical military need of Hawaii for the United States. This World situation culminated with the U.S. Senate, through the Newlands Joint Resolution, approving the Annexation of Hawaii on July 7, 1898 and the action celebrated in Hawaii on August 12, 1898.
In my very limited lega... See More
- Kama Ki · Following · Top Commenter · Owner at Kamaki's Authentic Hawaiian AdventuresAdd this: ...and then transferred title to another party who was an accessory to the theft of said vehicle....
- Kama Ki · Following · Top Commenter · Owner at Kamaki's Authentic Hawaiian AdventuresYour last comment reveals much more about you and why you say the things you say, than you realize. Read your own statement carefully. You divide your own family on racist grounds and you lap up a twisted manipulated regurgitated version of history that you believe. that's fine suit yourself, I'm not impressed but the more you say the more you lose credibility.
Replies
“If we pass the joint resolution, we enter upon a revolution which shall convert this country from a peaceful country into a warlike country. If we pass the resolution, we transform this country from one engaged in its own concerns into one which shall immediately proceed to intermeddle with the concerns of all the world.
If we pass the joint resolution, we inaugurate a revolution which shall convert this country from one designed for the advancement and the prosperity and the happiness of our citizens into one which shall seek its gratification in dominion and domination and foreign acquisition.”.
http://tinyurl.com/2748fgg
Contrary to what Mr. Chang said, the U.S. did NOT merely pass an internal law all by itself to reach out and grab Hawaii. The Treaty was first offered by the internationally recognized Republic of Hawaii in 1897, and then accepted by the U.S. in 1898. At first it did not come to the floor of the Senate for a vote because the politicians were unsure they had enough support -- it was never brought up for a vote and defeat... See More
A Resolution was introduced and approved by the Senate of the Republic of Hawaii; “BE IT RESOLVED, by the Senate of the Republic of Hawaii: That the Senate hereby ratifies and advises and consents to the ratification by the President of the treaty between the Republic of Hawaii and the United States of America on the subject of the annexation of the Hawaiian Islands to the United States of America concluded at Washington on the 16th day of June, A. D. 1897, which treaty is word for word as follows:” And, concluded with; "I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was unanimously adopted at the Special Session of the Senate of the Republic of Hawaii on the 9th day of September, A. D. 1897. WILLIAM C. WILDER, President”
This challenges the belief and position of Professor Chang on the annexation of the Republic of Hawaii by the United States..
http://tinyurl.com/2748fgg
Contrary to what Mr. Chang said, the U.S. did NOT merely pass an internal law all by itself to reach out and grab Hawaii. The Treaty was first offered by the internationally recognized Republic of Hawaii in 1897, and then accepted by the U.S. in 1898. At first it did not come to the floor of the Senate for a vote because the politicians were unsure they had enough support -- it was never brought up for a vote and de...See More
Professor care to do a follow up? I'd read it!
It appears that the actual recorded vote was 52 aye 28 nay and 9 not voting. https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/55-2/s329
The total of 89 differs from the official record that there were 90 Senators. If there were 89 Senators, the required 2/3 would be 59. If there were 90 Senators, the required 2/3 would be 60. In either case, 52 is not 2/3. Certainly using Conklin’s report of the count as 42 ayes, the vote fell far short of 2/3. What he refers to as 2/3 is the ratio of Senators voting yes to Senators voting no without counting Senators choosing not to vote.
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes#session=158&chamber[]=1
The United States Constitutional provision on ratification of treaties requires an affirmative vote of 2/3 of Senators present, not 2/3 of those choosing to vote. "[The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur..."
Even assuming Mr. Conklin's count is correct, 42 voting yes would represent 2/3 if there were only 63 Senators present. There were numerous votes on the Hawaiian issue in which more than 63 Senators actually voted. https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes#session=158&chamber[]=1
With all its other faults legally that Professor Chang so ably identifies, the joint resolution did not get converted into the equivalent of a treaty by a vote satisfying the numerical requirements of the United States Constitution.
Are people trying to say that Hawaii backed down and allowed the US to annex it out of fear of war?
If so please show evidence. I am curious. And don't just send me a link to a humongous article because I have been reading the hell out of articles about this and I cannot find a single place where this annexation was contested.
Only that those in power in Hawaii did nothing to stop the annexation of Hawaii.
It would be like Obama, if he gave the United States to the United Nations and NO ONE in Congress or the United States Citizenry does anything about it.
There was no one contesting the annexation back then in Government nor did the people stand up to the United States.
I can tell you this much... if a smaller nation puts up a fight to a larger Nation trying to occupy their land and other Countries see this they will certainly speak out. But no such thing has occurred in in the case of Hawaii.
If Hawaii had fought the United States would certainly not had slaughtered them. That wouldn't look too good for their cause.
So please, someone explain to me why this was wrong.
That would mean all Americans who repeat the lies about the Republic being the lawful successor of the Hawaiian Kingdom.....
IF WE GET A U.S. CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION - FINALLY CONVENED - AFTER ALL THESE YEARS.
IMAGINE - THE POSSIBILITIES ARE LIMITLESS!
The states have been asking to convene one for years. And as Marks found out, all he had to do was ask the right person to start counting.
There is a website where the Office of the Clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives is publicly posting the ongoing tabulation. Supporters of the process are confident that they will meet the two thirds threshhold of 34 states.
Interestingly, Hawaii is the only state whose legislature that has not made such a request. That could change this session with House Concurrent Resolution 53. The measure has been offered, requesting the u.s. congress call a constitutional convention to take on corporate campaign spending laws.
See more at: http://www.bigislandvideonews.com/2015/03/06/video-hilo-man-has-rol....
13) 1895-
President Cleveland Gave Hawaii Back to Queen Liliuokalanihttps://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B6Gs4av5Se1wN2JkZjMxMzEtMDIyNi00YW…
https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B6Gs4av5Se1wN2JkZjMxMzEtMDIyNi00YW…
14) 1897 – Annexation Opposition by Queen Liliuokalani found by researcher Kiliwehi Kekumano: https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B6Gs4av5Se1wOGJmZjg4MmQtNWRjMS00NT…
https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B6Gs4av5Se1wOGJmZjg4MmQtNWRjMS00NT…
Annexation Opposition (page 2) https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B6Gs4av5Se1wNWVlMTc0MjEtZWZiZS00Y2…
https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B6Gs4av5Se1wNWVlMTc0MjEtZWZiZS00Y2…
Annexation Opposition (page 3) https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B6Gs4av5Se1wY2RjYzZmNjQtMjUxYi00Zm…
https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B6Gs4av5Se1wY2RjYzZmNjQtMjUxYi00Zm…
Annexation Opposition (page 4) https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B6Gs4av5Se1wNmY2Mzk3ZTctZDEyMy00Yz…
https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B6Gs4av5Se1wNmY2Mzk3ZTctZDEyMy00Yz…
15) The Hawaiian Disgrace http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=F70A1FF7345D11738…
http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=F70A1FF7345D11738…
16) Shameful Conspiracy https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B6Gs4av5Se1wN2Y2YjAwOTItOTEwMC00Mz…