U.S. President Cleveland Gave Hawaii Back to Queen Liliuokalani Twice(2x), With Legal and Researched Information Showing The Existence of the Kingdom of Hawaii

                             U.S. President Cleveland Gave Hawaii 

                 Back to Queen Liliuokalani Twice (2x),

                       With Legal and Researched Information Showing The Existence of the Kingdom of Hawaii

                                                                                  Review by Amelia Gora (2017)

The following are important facts, issues reveals that the Kingdom of Hawaii continues to exist:

 1894

 U.S. President Cleveland Gave Hawaii back to Queen Liliuokalani:

"When Mr. Willis started he (U.S. President Cleveland) gave him two letters. One was addressed to Dole, President of the Provisional Government, in which he addressed Dole as "Great and good friend," and at the close, being a devout Christian, he asked "God to take care of Dole." This was the first letter. The letter of one President to another; of one friend to another. The second letter was addressed to Mr. Willis, in which Mr. Willis was told to upset Dole at the first opportunity and put the deposed Queen back on her throne. This may be diplomacy, but it is no kin to honesty."

 

Reference:  

The Inter-Ocean, Chicago, February 2, 1894.  Author:  Orator, Lawyer Robert Ingersoll

 

 1897

U.S. President Cleveland Again Gave Hawaii back to Queen Liliuokalani.

see:  President Cleveland Gave Hawaii Back to Queen Liliuokalani https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B6Gs4av5Se1wN2JkZjMxMzEtMDIyNi00YW…

https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B6Gs4av5Se1wN2JkZjMxMzEtMDIyNi00YW…

 2011

The following testimony by Kingdom of Hawaii Patriots reveals the following:

 

 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

THE TWENTY-SIXTH LEGISLATURE

REGULAR SESSION OF 2011

Rep. Faye P. Hanohano, Chair

Rep. Chris Lee, Vice Chair

Rep. Jessica Wooley, Chair

Rep. Della Au Belatti, Vice Chair

DATE:        

TIME:

8:30 a.m.

PLACE:

Conference Room 329

State Capitol

415 South Beretania Street

Madame Chair, distinguished committee members, ladies and gentlemen:

          My name is Keoni Kealoha Agard, a Native Hawaiian attorney.  We testify today on behalf of the members of Hui Aloha Aina so that their voices are no longer silenced.  We testify in opposition to SB 1520.

NEITHER STATE OF HAWAII LEGISLATURE NOR THE U.S. CONGRESS HAS THE

RIGHT TO USURP, INTERVENE OR ENCROACH UPON THE AUTHORITY OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH OR THE U.S.PRESIDENT

The sovereign status of the Kingdom of Hawaii is protected and

preserved by two EXECUTIVE AGREEMENTS in 1893 made by President Grover Cleveland and Queen Liliuokalani, two soverign heads of two distinct and separate nations.

          Because of the existence of the EXECUTIVE AGREEMENTS between President Grover Cleveland and Queen Liliuokalani,.this legislative body cannot consider legislation to reorganize a Native Hawaiian government in connection with SB 1520.

THE 1893 EXECUTIVE AGREEMENTS WERE NEVER TERMINATED OR EXTINIGUISHED AND REMAIN IN LEGAL FORCE AND EFFECT

          These Executive Agreements remain intact under the authority of the executive branch of the United States Government.  The responsibility to administer these Executive Agreements now are held in the hands of President Barack Obama.

EXECUTIVE AGREEMENTS WERE ENTERED INTO BY TWO SOVEREIGN HEADS OF STATE: THE UNITED STATES AND THE KINGDOM OF HAWAII BOTH RECOGNIZED BY U.S. LAW AS WELL AS INTERNATIONAL LAW

                   A pact or understanding with a foreign government reached by the

                   President or a Presidential agent is called an executive agreement.

                   The agreement may be written or oral. Unlike a treaty, it does not

                    require the advice and consent of the Senate. 

          The Executive Agreements in question were negotiated in 1893 between President Grover Cleveland, as sovereign head on behalf of the United States, and Queen Liliuokalani, as sovereign head on behalf of the Kingdom of Hawaii. 

The President entered into these Executive Agreements under his sole constitutional authority to represent the United States in foreign relations and the Congress cannot intervene without violating the separation of powers doctrine.  Intervention constitutes an encroachment upon the executive branch.

THE LI’LIUOKALANI ASSIGNMENT, the first agreement, assigned executive power to the United States President to administer Hawaiian Kingdom law and to investigate the overthrow of the Hawaiian government. 

THE RESORATION AGREEMENT , the second agreement obligated the President of the United States to restore the Hawaiian government as it was prior to the landing of U.S. troops on January 16, 1893, and for the Queen, after the government was restored and the executive power returned to grant full amnesty to those members and supporters of the provisional government who committed treason.         

QUEEN LILIUOKALANI YIELDED HER EXECUTIVE POWER OF THE KINGDOM OF HAWAIICONDITIONAL TO PRESIDENT CLEVELAND OF THE UNITED STATES UNTIL SUCH TIME THAT THE KINGDOM OF HAWAII WAS RESTORED,

THE KINGDOM OF HAWAII STILL REMAINS AND IS PROTECTED UNDER THE PRESIDENTIAL BRANCH OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

          Because the executive power was yielded by Queen Liliuokalani to President Cleveland, the sovereign status of the Kingdom of Hawaii still remains in the hands of Cleveland and his successors in office under the executive branch of the U.S. government.

All other actions by the U.S. Congress, the legislative branch of the U.S. government, are invalid or ineffective as Congress has no jurisdiction to legislate where it concerns foreign countries.  Moreover, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that Congress cannot legislate beyond the territorial borders of the United States.

Five years after the 1893 Executive Agreements were enacted, the purported successor governments of Hawaii (the Provisional Government and the Republic of Hawaii), had no authority to cede any Hawaiian lands to the United States.  Under Hawaiian Kingdom Law they were insurgents and traitors who were never pardoned by Queen Liliuokalani because the United States never restored the Kingdom.

These traitors never had the right to cede any land to the United States  

The executive power of the Kingdom of Hawaii and the administration of Kingdom laws were in the hands of President of the United States when the Newlands Resolution was passed.

The President granted no authority in connection with Kingdom lands to the Republic of Hawaii.

Therefore, the Republic of Hawaii had no lands to cede to the United States of America.

The attempt by the Republic of Hawaii and the United States Congress to cede all lands of the Kingdom of Hawaii is simply invalid.  That attempt was a perpetration of a massive fraud upon all peoples of Hawaii over the course of the past 118 years.

EXECUTIVE AGREEMENTS ARE CONSIDERED TREATIES THUS ARE THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND

          The Supremacy clause is found in the United States Constitution in Article IV, clause 2 which states in relevant part as follows:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be thesupreme law of the land…(emphasis added)

          In U.S. v. Belmont, the U.S. Supreme Court held that;

although an executive agreement might not be a treaty requiring ratification  by the Senate, it was a compact negotiated and proclaimed under the authority of the President, and as such was a“treaty”.

Accordingly, the Executive Agreements between Liliuokalani and Cleveland are considered a treaty between two foreign nations.

EXCLUSIVE POWERS OF THE PRESIDENT ASSIGNED UNDER THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION

          Executive agreements enable the U.S. President to make international arrangements without senatorial participation, as is constitutionally required for treaties. Presidents may thus circumvent the Constitution by calling treaties executive agreements.    Executive agreements are practical alternatives made under presidential authority. Starting early with postal relations, executive agreements cover many complex subjects such as copyrights, foreign aid, and trade. Big disputes mostly concern agreements made by presidents acting independently as national negotiator and commander in chief. After a modest debut with President James Monroe's agreement to limit arms on the Great Lakes in 1817, a convenient device for temporary or detailed arrangements developed into an instrument for major foreign policies. Further, President Franklin D.  Roosevelt converted executive agreements into primary instruments of foreign relations. He approved the Litvinov Agreement recognizing the Soviet Union in 1933, and the destroyer bases deal of 1940. During World War II, President Roosevelt and President Truman made secret agreements with allies at Cairo, Yalta, and Potsdam affecting most of the world. Postwar alliances and a global economy spawned thousands of executive agreements, more than 2,800 in the Reagan administration alone.  As such, the U.S.President has exclusive and sole authority as it relates to conducting foreign affairs on behalf of the United States of America. Given this authority, the U.S. President is duly authorized to negotiate executive agreements with other foreign nations.

IN 1843, UNITED STATES AND THE KINGDOM OF HAWAII  ENTERED INTO

TREATY RELATIONS TO OFFICIALLY RECOGNIZE THE INDEPENDENT SOVEREIGN STATUS OF THE KINGDOM OF HAWAII AS WITNESSED BY

THE ENTIRE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY

            In the 19th century, Great Britain and France entered into a joint proclamation acknowledging and recognizing the Kingdom of Hawai`i as an independent and sovereign State on November 28th1843. Moreover,on July 6th 1844, United States Secretary of State John C. Calhoun notified the Hawaiian government of the United States formal recognition of the Hawaiian Kingdom as an independent and sovereign state as of December 19th 1842 by President John Tyler. As a result of the United States’ recognition, the Hawaiian Kingdom entered into a Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation, Dec. 20th 1849 at 9 U.S.Stat. 977; Treaty of Commercial Reciprocity, Jan. 13th 1875 at 19 U.S. Stat. 625; Postal Convention Concerning Money Orders, Sep. 11th 1883 at 23 U.S. Stat. 736; and a Supplementary Convention to the 1875 Treaty of Commercial Reciprocity, Dec. 6th 1884 at 25 U.S. Stat. 1399.   The Hawaiian Kingdom also entered into treaties with Austria-Hungary, June 18th 1875; Belgium, Oct. 4th 1862; Bremen, March 27th1854; Denmark, Oct. 19th 1846; France, July 17th 1839, March 26th 1846, Sep. 8th 1858; French Tahiti, Nov. 24th 1853; Germany, March 25th 1879; Great Britain, Nov. 13th 1836 and March 26th 1846; Great Britain’s New South Wales, March 10th 1874; Hamburg, Jan. 8th 1848); Italy, July 22nd 1863; Japan, Aug. 19th 1871, Jan. 28th 1886; Netherlands, Oct. 16th 1862; Portugal, May 5th 1882; Russia, June 19th 1869; Samoa, March 20th 1887; Spain, Oct. 9th 1863; Sweden-Norway, April 5th 1855; and Switzerland, July 20th 1864.

          In the 21st century, an international tribunal as well as the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals acknowledged the Hawaiian Kingdom’s status as an internationally recognized state in the 19thcentury. In Larsen v. Hawaiian Kingdom, 119 ILR 566, 581 (2001), the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague stated,

                   in the nineteenth century the Hawaiian Kingdom

                   existed as an independent State recognized as such by

                   the United States of America, the United Kingdom,

                   and various other States.

          In addition, the 9th Circuit Court, in Kahawaiola`a v. Norton, 386 F.3rd 1271

 (2004), also acknowledged the Hawaiian Kingdom’s status as “a co-equal sovereign alongside the United States.” Furthermore, in Doe v. Kamehameha, 416 F.3d 1025, 1048 (2005), the Court stated that, “in 1866, the Hawaiian Islands were still a sovereign kingdom.”  Clearly, the Kingdom of Hawaii continues to exist.

 

Views: 41

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

PRESIDENT GROVER CLEVELAND’S MESSAGE TO CONGRESS IN 1893 CALLED

FOR THE RESTORATION OF KINGDOM OF HAWAII GOVERNMENT

          After a thorough investigation into the facts surrounding the unlawful overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii government by U.S. military forces in January 1893, President Grover Cleveland made an important speech to Congress, which states in pertinent part as follows:

     Thus it appears that Hawaii was taken possession of by the United States forces without the consent or wish of the government of the islands, or of anybody else so far as shown, except the United States Minister…Therefore the military occupation of Honolulu by the United States on the day mentioned was wholly without justification… (emphasis added)… I believe that a candid and thorough examination of the facts will force the conviction that the provisional government owes its existence to an armed invasion by the United States.  Fair-minded people with the evidence before them will hardly claim that the Hawaiian Government was overthrown by the people of the islands or that the provisional government had ever existed with their consent.  I do not understand that any member of this government claims that the people would uphold it by their suffrages if they were allowed to vote on the question…

          In short, President Grover Cleveland’s message was a re- affirmation of his understanding of the executive communications he had with Queen Liliuokalani and further buttressed his intent to restore the Kingdom of Hawaii government. Further, his words to Congress were indeed consistent with his diplomat negotiations with Queen Liliuokalani pursuant to their Executive Agreements.

CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL IS NOT REQUIRED FOR THE CLEVELAND/ LILIUOKALANI EXECUTIVE AGREEMENTS TO BE EFFECTIVE

          Applicable federal caselaw establishes that Congressional approval is not required in order for an Executive Agreement to be effective.   Executive Agreements entered into by the President under his constitutional authority with foreign States are treaties that do not need ratification by the Senate. See United States v. Belmont.  The U.S. Constitution provides that treaties, like acts of Congress, are considered the “supreme law” of the land; see U.S. Constitution Article VI, Clause (2).

          In Belmont, supra, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed that executive agreements entered into between the President and a sovereign nation does not require ratification from the U.S. Senate to have the force and effect of a treaty; and executive agreements bind successor Presidents for their faithful execution (emphasis added).  Other landmark cases on executive agreements are United States v. Pink, and American Insurance Association v. Garamendi.  In Garamendi, supra, the Court stated, “Specifically, the President has authority to make ‘executive agreements’ with other countries, requiring no ratification by the Senate or approval by Congress.”  According to Justice Douglas, Pink, supra, executive agreements “must be read not as self-contained technical documents, like a marine insurance contract or a bill of lading, but as characteristically delicate and elusive expressions of diplomacy.” 

          In short, Executive Agreements are considered a treaty, which is treated as the supreme law of the land, not requiring ratification by Congress.  Likewise, Congress cannot encroach upon the Executive powers of the President as it relates to Executive Agreements, including such Agreement between President Cleveland with Queen Liliuokalani in 1893.

NO CONGRESSIONAL ACT CAN SUPERCEDE THE EXECUTIVE AGREEMENTS

          Based on the court decisions in Rose, supra, and The Apollon, supra, cited above, the United States cannot legislate by passing laws that impact the citizens of other foreign states. There is no precedent or authority for taking such action.  For example, the U.S. is precluded from passing laws via Congress on behalf of citizens from Great Britain, France, Germany and others. Likewise, it is precluded from passing laws via Congress on behalf of citizens of the Kingdom of Hawaii.

          Queen Liliuokalani turned over her executive power to the President for him to faithfully administer Hawaiian Kingdom law.  To this day, the President still holds that executive power, consistent with the Liliuokalani assignment.  As such, Congress cannot encroach upon the exclusive executive power of the President. 

“SEPARATION OF POWERS DOCTRINE”- PRECLUDES ENCROACHMENT BY THE THREE BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT WITH EACH OTHER

          Separation of powers is a political doctrine originating from the United States Constitution, whereby the legislative, executive, and judical branches of the United States government are kept distinct in order to prevent abuse of power. This U.S. form of separation of powers is associated with a system of checks and balances.  Each branch of government is given exclusive powers and assigned certain responsibilities under the U.S. Constitution. The separation of powers doctrine precludes encroachment by any one branch into the responsibilities assigned to other branches of government.

ANY ACTS BY SUCCESSOR GOVERNMENTS, BY CONGRESS OR BY OTHERS AFTER LILIUOKALANI ASSIGNMENT ARE INVALID

          Any acts taken by successor governments, the Congress and/or others are ineffective and invalid.  The executive power remains in the hands of President Cleveland and his successors in office.  Hawaiian lands and Kingdom of Hawaii government was never legitimately transferred because they were under the protection of the office of the President pursuant to the Executive Agreement between President Cleveland and Queen Liliuokalani.  Such executive power was held by Cleveland and his successors until such time that the Kingdom of Hawaii government is restored.

THE UNITED STATES IS PRECLUDED FROM LEGISLATING BEYOND ITS OWN TERRITORIAL BORDERS

          According to Born, “American courts, commentators, and other authorities understood international law as imposing strict territorial limits on national assertions of legislative jurisdiction.”  Furthermore, in Rose v. Himely, the U.S. Supreme Court illustrated this view by asserting, “that the legislation of every country is territorial;” and in The Apollon, the Court stated that the “laws of no nation can justly extend beyond its own territory” for it would be “at variance with the independence and sovereignty of foreign nations.” The Court also explained, “however general and comprehensive the phrases used in our municipal laws may be, they must always be restricted in construction, to places and persons, upon whom the legislature have authority and jurisdiction.”  

NO TREATY OF ANNEXATION WAS EVER PASSED BY U.S. CONGRESS TO EXTINGUISH THE EXISTENCE OF THE KINGDOM OF HAWAII

          There were two attempts to introduce a treaty of annexation before the U.S. Congress first in 1893, then again in 1897.  Both failed in Congress (see Exhibit 1-2), attached hereto. The history books must be corrected to reflect the real facts. There never was any annexation of the Kingdom of Hawaii. As such, the Kingdom of Hawaii continues to exist (see Hague decision inLarsen v. Kingdom of Hawaii, supra), notwithstanding the unlawful military occupation of the Kingdom of Hawaii by the U.S.

JOINT RESOLUTION BY U.S.CONGRESS IN 1898 IS INEFFECTIVE AS KINGDOM

WAS UNDER THE PROTECTION OF THE PRESIDENT THUS KINGDOM OF

HAWAII CONTINUES TO EXIST

          President Cleveland had already entered in an agreement to restore the Kingdom of Hawaii government prior to Congressional efforts to take Hawaii.  Because Cleveland retained the executive power of Liliuokalani, the successor government, Republic of Hawaii, had no legal standing to attempt to cede any Hawaiian lands to the U.S. by way of a joint resolution.  Further, Cleveland never authorized ceding of lands to either the Provisional government or the Republic of Hawaii.  Neither successor government could have ceded Hawaii lands because they had nothing to cede.  Two attempts to secure a treaty of annexation failed in Congress.  Although a Joint Resolution to annex Kingdom of Hawaii to the United States was passed in Congress, such measure has no legal force and effect.  First, the Kingdom of Hawaii was under the protection of President Cleveland pursuant to the Executive Agreements.  Second, there is no constitutional authority under the U.S. Constitution that authorizes Congress to annex a territory by way of joint resolution, as opposed to a treaty of annexation (that failed twice in Congress).  Third, the Provisional government and Republic of Hawaii under Kingdom law were traitors under Hawaiian Kingdom law, and had no legitimate claim to Lands of the Kingdom of Hawaii.

          In 1898, the U.S. Congress, in an act of desperation, in violation of the U.S. Constitution and further in violation of and also contrary to international law, passed a joint resolution.  Said resolution purportedly claimed annexation of the Kingdom of Hawaii; it falsely claimed then and still continues to claim, without merit, the extinction of the Kingdom of Hawaii.

          However, the facts reveal that the Congress failed at two different points in time in 1893 and 1897, thus was never able to pass a law, nor to approve any treaty of annexation of the Kingdom of Hawaii, contrary to many fictitious commentaries throughout history who claim that Kingdom of Hawaii was annexed.  Nothing can be farther from the truth. A careful examination will reveal that there is no provision whatsoever in the U.S. Constitution that allows for annexation of any foreign country, including the Kingdom of Hawaii, by the United States by use of a joint resolution resolution.  Any attempt to declare otherwise has no merit. In short, the passage of the joint resolution was simply a political ploy to dupe others into falsely believing the Kingdom of Hawaii was annexed to the U.S., when it was not.

 

ALL EVENTS OCCURING AFTER LILIUOKALANI ASSIGNMENT ARE INEFFECTIVE AND HAS NO LEGAL FORCE AND EFFECT

          The separation of powers doctrine does not allow any U.S. branch of government to encroach upon the duties and responsibility assigned to the other branches.

          When Liliuokalani yielded her executive power to the U.S. President, he was charged to faithfully carry out the terms of the Executive Agreements on her behalf.  That same power still rests with the President today.  Other branches of government cannot encroach.   It is important to emphasize that all of the events described earlier, had no effect whatsoever on the executive power entrusted to the President.  Any events occurring after the Liliuokalani assignment to President Cleveland had no legal force and effect whatsoever.  Any actions by alleged successor governments of the Kingdom of Hawaii, or by Congress, or by anyone else, is a direct encroachment on the powers of the President.

NO STATE LAW CAN SUPERCEDE EXECUTIVE AGREEMENTS

          The State of Hawai`i’s may allege a claim to territorial jurisdiction under HRS 701-106(1)(a). However, it is in direct conflict with the 1893 Executive Agreements and the judicial precedence set in three U.S. Supreme Court decisions pursuant to  Belmont, supra (1937), Pink, supra, (1942), and Garamendi, supra (2003), which is in violation of the Supremacy clause.

          Since the United States is a Federal government, States within the Federal Union are subject to the supremacy of Federal laws and treaties, in particular, executive agreements. U.S. constitution, article VI, clause 2, provides:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United  States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made,or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges           in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding (emphasis added).

          In Belmont, supra and Pink,supra, the Court gave effect to the express terms of an executive agreement that extinguishes all underlying claims of relief sought under State law.  TheLili`uokalani assignment mandates the President to administer Hawaiian Kingdom law until the Hawaiian Kingdom government can be restored as mandated by the Agreement of restoration. Instead, the State of Hawai`i was established by an Act of Congress in 1959, which is an encroachment on the executive power of the President, and the recognized principle of the “exclusive power of the President as the sole organ of the federal government in the field of international relations,” (emphasis added).

     In Belmont, supra, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that:

no state policy can be found to legally supersede an executive agreement between the federal government and a foreign country. The external powers of the U.S. government can be exercised without regard to State laws.

          The Lili`uokalani Assignment and the Agreement of Restoration are Federal matters under the exclusive authority of the President by virtue of Article II of the U.S. Constitution.  TheLili`uokalani Assignment and the Agreement of Restoration divests this legislative body from exercising subject matter jurisdiction over such matters.  

MILITARY OCCUPATION BY THE UNITED STATES DOES NOT EXTINGUISH THE SOVEREIGN STATE OF THE KINDGOM OF HAWAII

          Let us address the question on whether or not the Hawaiian Kingdom status as a sovereign state was extinguished after its government was overthrown by U.S. troops on January 17th 1893. As a subject of international law, statehood of the Hawaiian Kingdom can only be measured and determined by the rules of international law and not the domestic laws of any State to include the United States and the Hawaiian Kingdom. 

According to Professor Crawford, a well recognized international law scholar, “A State is not necessarily extinguished by substantial changes in territory, population or government, or even, in some cases, by a combination of all three.”  In particular, military “occupation does not extinguish the State pending a final settlement of the conflict. And, generally, the presumption—in practice a strong presumption—favors the continuity and disfavors the extinction of an established State.”  Professor Wright, a renowned scholar in U.S. foreign relations law, states that, “international law distinguishes between a government and the state it governs.”  Wright says that:

A state may continue to be regarded as such even though, due to insurrection or other difficulties, its internal affairs become anarchic for an extended period of time;”  and “Military occupation, whether during war or after an armistice, does not terminate statehood (emphasis added)

          Therefore, a sovereign State would continue to exist despite its government being overthrown by military force.  Two contemporary examples illustrate this principle of international law, including the overthrow of the Taliban (Afghanistan) in 2001 and of Saddam Hussein (Iraq) in 2003. The former has been a recognized sovereign State since 1919, while the latter since 1932.  Further, Professor Dixon explains:

If an entity ceases to possess any of the qualities of statehood…this does not mean that it ceases to be a state under international law. For example,           the absence of an effective government in Afghanistan and Iraq following the intervention of the USA did not mean that there were no such states,         and the same is true of Sudan where there still appears to be no entity          governing the country effectively. Likewise, if a state is allegedly ‘extinguished’ through the illegal action of another state, it will remain a state in international law.  

          According to Professor Marek, “the legal order of the occupant is…strictly subject to the principle of effectiveness, while the legal order of the occupied State continues to exist notwithstanding the absence of effectiveness [e.g. no government]. …[Occupation] is thus the classical case in which the requirement of effectiveness as a condition of validity of a legal order is abandoned.”  Referring to the United States’ occupation of the Hawaiian Kingdom in his law journal article, Professor Dumberry states:

the 1907 Hague Convention protects the international personality of the           occupied State, even in the absence of effectiveness.  Furthermore, the legal order of the occupied State remains intact, although its effectiveness is greatly diminished by the fact of occupation.  As such, Article 43 of the 1907 Hague Convention IV provides for the co-existence of two distinct           legal orders, that of the occupier and the occupied.  

          In the case of Kingdom of Hawaii, it remained protected under the power of the Executive Branch pursuant to the terms of the Executive Agreements.  Said Agreements remain under the protection of the current President to this very day.  Therefore, although the occupation continues to the present day, the Kingdom of Hawaii continues to exist as a sovereign state.  TheLili`uokalani Assignment and the Agreement of Rrestoration are Federal matters under the exclusive authority of the President by virtue of Article II of the U.S. Constitution. Accordingly, this legislative body  cannot exercise subject matter jurisdiction without violating the Supremacy Clause and the separation of powers doctrine under the U.S.Constitution.

CONCLUSION

          The Lili`uokalani Assignment and the Agreement of Restoration, being Executive Agreements, were entered into under the sole authority of the President in foreign relations.  The proper authority rests in the Executive Branch.  Only the President reserves the proper authority to resolve this controversy.  This legislative body does not have such authority.  The legislative body cannot usurp or intervene when the Executive Agreements are reserved to the President.  Under the separation of powers doctrine, the question of which branch reserves the power to conduct foreign affairs, it is clearly the President.  

          In short, we strongly urge this legislative body to drop this bill and allow the proper branch of government to address these matters described above.  Thank you for this opportunity to share our concerns on SB 1520.                              

Acknowledgement to Louis Buzzy Agard, John M. Agard, Keanu Sai, Dexter Kaiama, Kale Gumapac, Sol Naluai, Lehua Kinilau-Cano, Tracy Tamanaha, Mary Ann Saindon, Lynette & Franklin Valdez and many others

Reference:  http://maoliworld.com/forum/topics/pono-alert-long-live-the-2

 

 

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

Senator A.O. Bacon

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 

Williamson Chang is a professor of Law and member of the faculty senate at the University of Hawaii at Manoa. Professor Chang has been teaching at the University of Hawaii School of Law for 37 years. He specializes in water rights, Native Hawaiian rights, the legal history of Hawaii and conflict of laws.

Williamson Chang · Princeton University

Dear 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.

Williamson Chang · Princeton University

Dear 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.

Amelia Gora · Works at Self-Employed

Jr 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
Reply · Like · 5 · Edited · March 9 at 12:20am




Reply by Amelia Gora on March 13, 2015 at 8:12amDelete

  •  
  •  
  •  
    • Amelia Gora · Works at Self-Employed
      Texas was taken over, occupied by the same sugar planters from the Hawaiian Islands who occupied Mexican Territory, then had the U.S. Calvary help to protect their asses/er assets....that was a good Freudian slip...lol.......anywayz if you view the characters involved, you'll see that even today many of the Texans have their roots, relatives residing in the Hawaiian Islands....for example, the Cutter family in the Hawaiian Islands and their relative who moved over from Texas named Linda Lingle who became Governor....and recently she's back in the news http://bipartisanpolicy.org/person/linda-lingle/....red flags because the 'One World order activists seems to be spanning from the Hawaiian Islands, Texas, and Illinois with the Booth families........fyi....the Booth's are Obama's families by the way...... they are also Confederate General Robert E. Lee's bloodlines who was one of the heirs of George Washington's whose wife was a stock holder in the Bank of England........Obama is from a pirate, pillaging banker family being part of ( faggot )Charles Reed Bishop's sister who was a namesake of Bernice Pauahi Bishop., Charles Reed Bishop who was married to Bernice Pauahi Bishop was a banker, whose lover was William Lee, an American Consulate worker, attorney, judge.... anywayz see http://maoliworld.ning.com/forum/topics/exposing-obama-charles-reed... The Booth family appears to be tied to the One World Order, etc. due to the descendants being part of the auto sales (including Cutter - cousin of Linda Lingle); food chain - Foodland; airline industry, and the Bank of Hawaii....the bankers....their ancestor Booth was a "nigger hating" Englishman documented....his widow married into the Long's family (could it be the Long's Drugs chain? - research incomplete)... he had a son John Booth who went missing around the time U.S. President Lincoln was shot/assassinated..... also the Bush family also has its roots in the Hawaiian Islands....they have cousins here....and appears Candoleeza Rice too...the Rice family on the outer islands, etc..... observing that the various players, the pirates, pillages of the Hawaiian Islands and the world are the same people who have their wealth off of our Hawaiian monies, the Middle East areas due to the oil ---- car companies---airlines connections.... oh, interestingly the Court of Claims that Queen Liliuokalani entered in over the Crown Lands.which was claimed Ceded by the treasonous persons...Booth declared that the Ceded lands belonged to the office and not Queen Liliuokalani, etc.....(do you see more of the criminal wrongs? the wrongs by criminal deviants with roots from the same families?).....had Fenton Booth as the newly appointed Judge of the period...he was from Illinois....the same area where Obama attended school....the same think tank that houses the One World Order/New World Order activists.... hope everyone also smells something stink too....http://maoliworld.ning.com/forum/topics/exposing-obama-thru-genealo... also see what the greed is all about in the following film by Kili Kekumano and watch a LepreCON Pirate named (former Governor and Congressman) Neal Abercrombie explain it well in his greedy little low life way.... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fjELyim8q80 oh by the way Kamehameha's families/the Royal Families exists.... the heirs are here fyi.....and the entity State of Hawaii who claim to be successors of the Kingdom of Hawaii are Not related to us! Empower yourselves with knowledge folks and watch all the greedy players who are not even kanaka maoli! ;)
    aloha.
    Reference: 
  • http://maoliworld.com/forum/topics/judge-scalia-a-disinformer-or-un...
Delete

2015 - 

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.

MARCH 7, 2015·By WILLIAMSON CHANG 

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

Justice Antonin Scalia

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.

https://www.civilbeat.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/image5.jpg" alt="McKinley"/>

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.’ ”

facebook post:

U,S. President Cleveland Gave Hawaii Back Twice,,, Agard Testimony, Williamson Chang Testimony, and some of my postings.........fyi .,important keeper for preparation for legal arguments, etc......gear up, copy, zap to family, friends.......

The online Kanaka Maoli community.
MAOLIWORLD.COM
Comments

RSS

© 2019   Created by Ikaika Hussey.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service