And the spin goes on, eh? He would have a case if the Newlands Resolutions and the Admission Act of 1959 were legitimate and valid; but we know it's not. Racism is reverse racism since they were the ones to institute it. As a nation, we did have multi-ethnic citizenship and the U.S. barred Asians and discouraged asians from being admitted into the country. How easily they forget that. Aside from that the kanaka maoli is victimized more so because Hawai'i is their homeland and sovereign nation that interacted with over 25 nations which is more than the native Americans did; proving that Hawai'i was internationally participating as peer with the U.S. and not tribal.The other factor is they are taking apart the Apology Resolution and dissecting it, but not the Newlands Resolution. They won't touch that with a ten-foot pole! It would demolish their case as would the Statehood Act which is greatly flawed.TaneSent: Sunday, December 21, 2008 10:15 AMSubject: CATO joins in accusing us Kanaka of racism in our homeland: "Hawaii's Race Case"Sent: Friday, December 19, 2008 6:38 PMSubject: Hawaii's Race Case - Dec 19, 2008CATO InstituteHawaii's Race Caseby Ilya ShapiroIlya Shapiro is a senior fellow in constitutional studies at the Cato Institute and editor-in-chief of the Cato Supreme Court Review.Added to cato.org on December 19, 2008This article appeared in the Washington Times on December 19, 2008While it may be good for the country that this Supreme Court term mainly involves technical statutory issues (at least they can't do more harm to the Constitution!), it's a bit of a let down for those of us who follow the machinations of One First Street. One such obscure case, however, merits watching for its ramifications on the constitutional principle that all citizens should be treated equally under the law. The central issue in Hawaii v. OHA - whether Hawaii can sell certain state lands without accommodating a racialist commission called the Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA) - is idiosyncratic, but the case threatens to set a terrible precedent for a state that has otherwise been a model of racial harmony.In the 2000 case of Rice v. Cayetano, the Supreme Court held that a race-based scheme allowing only statutorily defined "Hawaiians" to vote for OHA's trustees was unconstitutional. Despite Rice, and despite Justice John Marshall Harlan's dissenting statement in Plessy v. Ferguson 112 years ago that "[o]ur Constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens," OHA continues to view Hawaiian citizens through racial lenses. This practice has spawned numerous lawsuits, including the present legal crisis in which the state's authority to manage its land for the good of all of its citizens has been replaced with a court-imposed duty to hold the land for the benefit of one racial class.Specifically, after nearly 15 years of litigation, the Hawaii Supreme Court blocked the sale of 1.2 million acres of land (29 percent of the state's total area) based on a mistaken interpretation of a joint resolution that Congress passed in 1993 to apologize for the 1893 overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii. While the Apology Resolution was itself based on a slanted view of history - the propagation of which may yet lead to the creation of race-based state government (see the Akaka Bill, a subject for a different article) - the larger point is that the court rewrote the terms by which Hawaii became the 50th state.But nothing in the Apology Resolution remotely supports the idea that somehow Congress impaired (retroactively!) the property rights in question; the Resolution does not address either Hawaii's sovereign powers or its title to state lands. Further, the Newlands Resolution of 1898 (the law annexing Hawaii to the United States), as well as the Admission Act of 1959 and subsequent federal legislation, foreclose the premise that "Native Hawaiians" may have valid claims that an injunction against land sales preserve.That is, the United States obtained full sovereignty over the disputed lands when it annexed Hawaii, and the new state government assumed that sovereignty when Hawaii joined the Union. The Hawaii Supreme Court's decision, committed in the name of federal law, thus violates both state sovereignty and federal law! Moreover, the proposition that OHA gets a veto over the transfer of state lands merely because it purports to represent the interests of those who make race-based claims to those lands is an affront to the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.Some argue that "Native Hawaiians" are a special class who, like Indian tribes, are allowed special treatment based on racial classification. But Hawaiians are not American Indians in the constitutional sense. The term "Indian tribes" has a fixed meaning, limited to "dependent nations" at the time of the Founding. Such tribes must have an independent existence and "community" apart from the rest of American society, and a separate government structure for at least the past century.Hawaii, by contrast, is the most integrated and blended society in America. Only ten percent of "Native Hawaiians" have at least fifty percent Hawaiian blood - and only two of the nine OHA trustees have Hawaiian surnames. No, Indian law is a unique compromise with pre-constitutional realities - one based on political rather than racial classifications - that is inapplicable to Hawaii.In short, the Apology Resolution neither amended nor rescinded the federal laws that gave Hawaii full control over the disputed lands. But even if it did, race-based claims to those lands should be dismissed as unconstitutional.The Supreme Court announced in Rice the unwavering principle that "[t]he Constitution of the United States ... has become the heritage of all the citizens of Hawaii." Let's hope that it builds on that sentiment in Hawaii v. OHA. Hawaii should be allowed to transfer state lands for the benefit of all its citizens - thus eroding racial divisions and treating all Hawaiians with the legal equality to which they are entitled.Cato Supreme Court Review: 2007-2008Published every September, the Cato Supreme Court Review analyzes key cases from the Court's most recent term.
To clarify:
Congress passed the Newlands Resolution by a simple majority. The U.S. Constitution requires ALL treaties to be ratified by 2/3 vote of those present in the Senate. Thus, there was no Treaty of Cession nor a Treaty of Annexation that was ratified or exchanged; only a resolution which can be viewed as non-binding, symbolic, and purported as the Newlands resolution is, which has no force in a foreign country and outside of their territory even if they are belligerently occupying that country.
The U.S. has been continuously violating the laws of occupation and the laws of neutrality.
These are facts; can the U.S. afford to bring it into their courts? Will it be a fair hearing? Will they confront the truth or make a mockery of justice and honor of its country?
By now everyone should be aware of the facts that led up to this ineffective Newlands Resolution. Based on this fact and that of the irregular and illegitimate procedure for statehood, deems all other arguments fatuous and moot and of no consequence to the facts relating to this issue. It is done to obfuscate the facts. Bottomline: there is no treaty of annexation by both parties concerned and no ratification involved with both parties who are the same party concerned and a conflict of interest.
Regardless of the extenuating circumstances, Newlands Resolution is not a treaty nor is it capable of ratifying a treaty. Thus the U.S. Belligerent occupation is still in effect and Hawai'i was never part of the U.S.A. I hope this is clear and concise. This is the key that estoppels all consequential claims the U.S. attempts to make. No treaty, no cessation, no U.S. annexation of Hawai'i, no U.S. Territory, no statehood, no U.S. citizenship no secession. It is still a U.S. belligerent occupation of Hawai'i and an ongoing violation of Hawai'i's neutrality and the laws of occupation.
Comments
Congress passed the Newlands Resolution by a simple majority. The U.S. Constitution requires ALL treaties to be ratified by 2/3 vote of those present in the Senate. Thus, there was no Treaty of Cession nor a Treaty of Annexation that was ratified or exchanged; only a resolution which can be viewed as non-binding, symbolic, and purported as the Newlands resolution is, which has no force in a foreign country and outside of their territory even if they are belligerently occupying that country.
The U.S. has been continuously violating the laws of occupation and the laws of neutrality.
These are facts; can the U.S. afford to bring it into their courts? Will it be a fair hearing? Will they confront the truth or make a mockery of justice and honor of its country?
By now everyone should be aware of the facts that led up to this ineffective Newlands Resolution. Based on this fact and that of the irregular and illegitimate procedure for statehood, deems all other arguments fatuous and moot and of no consequence to the facts relating to this issue. It is done to obfuscate the facts. Bottomline: there is no treaty of annexation by both parties concerned and no ratification involved with both parties who are the same party concerned and a conflict of interest.
Regardless of the extenuating circumstances, Newlands Resolution is not a treaty nor is it capable of ratifying a treaty. Thus the U.S. Belligerent occupation is still in effect and Hawai'i was never part of the U.S.A. I hope this is clear and concise. This is the key that estoppels all consequential claims the U.S. attempts to make. No treaty, no cessation, no U.S. annexation of Hawai'i, no U.S. Territory, no statehood, no U.S. citizenship no secession. It is still a U.S. belligerent occupation of Hawai'i and an ongoing violation of Hawai'i's neutrality and the laws of occupation.