Posted by Pono Kealoha on February 11, 2009 at 10:00pm
Honolulu Star BulletinGATHERING PLACEState cannot have clear title to former kingdom landsBy Kamanamaikalani BeamerPOSTED: 01:30 a.m. HST, Feb 09, 2009(Single Page View) | Return to Paginated ViewGov. Linda Lingle used her recent "State of the State" address to defend her position in appealing a state Supreme Court case that halted the sale of "ceded lands," or what is often referred to as the former crown and government lands of the Hawaiian kingdom. The U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments next month on the administration's appeal of the Hawaii high court ruling that the state cannot sell or transfer ceded lands until native Hawaiian claims are settled.She has said that the issue her administration is trying to address is "whether or not the state has clear title to the land that was transferred by the federal government after statehood."This article speaks to the issue of clear title to the Hawaiian kingdom crown and government lands as well as the facade of integrity which this administration is attempting to portray in carrying this case forward.» Legal title to the lands of the Hawaiian kingdom was first addressed in the kingdom's Constitution of 1840 where it states that all the lands from one end of the islands to the other belonged to the king as well as "the alii (chiefs) and the kanaka (native Hawaiian people) in common." Therefore, the first constitution of the Hawaiian kingdom established the concept that the lands of the kingdom were vested in three classes: the king (or government), the chiefs and the native Hawaiian people. The Mahele of 1848 recognized the vested rights of these three classes to land through awarding original certificates of title to chiefs as well as establishing the government and crown lands, while placing in each and every title the clause of their lands being "Subject to the Rights of Native Tenants" (koe nae ke kuleana o na kanaka).Hawaiian kingdom land tenure is not synonymous with American land tenure, and in fact is established through two differing legal systems. Under kingdom law, native Hawaiians have a kuleana or vested right to portions of the crown and government lands. That the presently right-leaning U.S. Supreme Court could recognize this is doubtful.Furthermore, attempting to make the case an issue of title without addressing the overthrow of the kingdom and the illegal actions of representatives of the U.S. government as stated in even U.S. law and evidenced by the "Apology Resolution"; the "annexation" of the islands through domestic joint-resolution rather than an internationally binding treaty, which was resisted through petitions by Hawaiian nationals of the time; how the "Republic of Hawaii" acquired clear and valid title being that any claim it has to the crown and government lands rests on it being installed to power by the United States, is dishonest at best.» The issue of morals will not go away through the actions of the U.S. Supreme Court. While every portion of the "ceded lands" carries a genealogy of injustice accented with loss and stained in antagonism, they also carry a clause of being "Subject to the Rights of Native Tenants."I cannot overstate the gravity of the situation. Like Lingle, I call "upon all who cherish what is the essence of Hawaii," those Hawaiian and not, those who sang long ago sweet Hawaiian songs as keiki in our schools, but whose melodies still echo in our hearts, those who value justice and righteous struggle, to reject the present course of the governor, to call for her withdrawal of the case while also contacting your local representative asking them to pass state legislation that prevents the sale of any portion of the "ceded lands." Hawaii as we know it "can't afford business as usual."O au no me ka haahaa.Kamanamaikalani "Kamana" Beamer is a Mellon-Hawaii post-doctoral fellow. He earned his Ph.D. in geography from the University of Hawaii-Manoa.Gov. Linda Lingle used her recent "State of the State" address to defend her position in appealing a state Supreme Court case that halted the sale of "ceded lands," or what is often referred to as the former crown and government lands of the Hawaiian kingdom. The U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments next month on the administration's appeal of the Hawaii high court ruling that the state cannot sell or transfer ceded lands until native Hawaiian claims are settled.She has said that the issue her administration is trying to address is "whether or not the state has clear title to the land that was transferred by the federal government after statehood."This article speaks to the issue of clear title to the Hawaiian kingdom crown and government lands as well as the facade of integrity which this administration is attempting to portray in carrying this case forward.» Legal title to the lands of the Hawaiian kingdom was first addressed in the kingdom's Constitution of 1840 where it states that all the lands from one end of the islands to the other belonged to the king as well as "the alii (chiefs) and the kanaka (native Hawaiian people) in common." Therefore, the first constitution of the Hawaiian kingdom established the concept that the lands of the kingdom were vested in three classes: the king (or government), the chiefs and the native Hawaiian people. The Mahele of 1848 recognized the vested rights of these three classes to land through awarding original certificates of title to chiefs as well as establishing the government and crown lands, while placing in each and every title the clause of their lands being "Subject to the Rights of Native Tenants" (koe nae ke kuleana o na kanaka).Hawaiian kingdom land tenure is not synonymous with American land tenure, and in fact is established through two differing legal systems. Under kingdom law, native Hawaiians have a kuleana or vested right to portions of the crown and government lands. That the presently right-leaning U.S. Supreme Court could recognize this is doubtful.Furthermore, attempting to make the case an issue of title without addressing the overthrow of the kingdom and the illegal actions of representatives of the U.S. government as stated in even U.S. law and evidenced by the "Apology Resolution"; the "annexation" of the islands through domestic joint-resolution rather than an internationally binding treaty, which was resisted through petitions by Hawaiian nationals of the time; how the "Republic of Hawaii" acquired clear and valid title being that any claim it has to the crown and government lands rests on it being installed to power by the United States, is dishonest at best.» The issue of morals will not go away through the actions of the U.S. Supreme Court. While every portion of the "ceded lands" carries a genealogy of injustice accented with loss and stained in antagonism, they also carry a clause of being "Subject to the Rights of Native Tenants."I cannot overstate the gravity of the situation. Like Lingle, I call "upon all who cherish what is the essence of Hawaii," those Hawaiian and not, those who sang long ago sweet Hawaiian songs as keiki in our schools, but whose melodies still echo in our hearts, those who value justice and righteous struggle, to reject the present course of the governor, to call for her withdrawal of the case while also contacting your local representative asking them to pass state legislation that prevents the sale of any portion of the "ceded lands." Hawaii as we know it "can't afford business as usual."O au no me ka haahaamahalo TK
They insist on ignoring parts of the Turpie Resolutions that would have to acknowledge the people's choice which they made through the Ku'e Petitions that they summarily dismissed. Ku'e hou!
She wants us to dance the hula and agee with her. Yes, pliau attitude to even insist that what she is doing is PONO. A'ole, if you stay home do nothing, they laugh at you. Why don't we laught at them instead! You know what you got to do, got game?
It is very troubling that while I am pro-oiwi Republican Lingle is trying to push for the people of the "state" of Hawai'i to condone this. The land was never ceded. You HAVE to have written consent whenever you deal with real property and oiwi NEVER signed to transfer their title. That's why she is trying to appeal to people's emotions because logic makes people think while emotions make people ACT.
Well what SHE is doing is just so WRONG. Not just to oiwi but to non-oiwi especially their kids who are learning from them that it's somehow "okay" to use other people's personal property without their consent. THAT is just SO wrong and NO Lingle does not represent other Republicans. Not all Republicans condone this PILAU!
She has said that the issue her administration is trying to address is "whether or not the state has clear title to the land that was transferred by the federal government after statehood."
This opens Pandora's Box something the U.S. is not likely to do. They have been avoiding it like the plague since 1898. They only want to go back as far as the Newlands Resolution and not prior. The fate of that resolution is that it is unlawful and thus null and void; but they don't want that brought up. There was NEVER a treaty of annexation; Congress rejected it when it couldn't get 2/3 rds required vote to ratify it. A resolution is U.S. internal measure that doesn't extend beyond its territory. The Statehood Act is also internal; to vote you had to register as a U.S. American. The choice was to become a state or remain a territory. Both unlawful.
The kidnapper of your child asks you if the child can change its name to Sam or remain with the original name he gave your child, Terri. You don't want to agree because you gave him the name Harry, so he asks his wife and she agrees in your stead. Your child is re-named Sam; but is not returned to you. You want Harry back. The judge in the court is Sam's brother-in-law. What do you do?
Comments
Well what SHE is doing is just so WRONG. Not just to oiwi but to non-oiwi especially their kids who are learning from them that it's somehow "okay" to use other people's personal property without their consent. THAT is just SO wrong and NO Lingle does not represent other Republicans. Not all Republicans condone this PILAU!
Aloha!~~~ Lana
This opens Pandora's Box something the U.S. is not likely to do. They have been avoiding it like the plague since 1898. They only want to go back as far as the Newlands Resolution and not prior. The fate of that resolution is that it is unlawful and thus null and void; but they don't want that brought up. There was NEVER a treaty of annexation; Congress rejected it when it couldn't get 2/3 rds required vote to ratify it. A resolution is U.S. internal measure that doesn't extend beyond its territory. The Statehood Act is also internal; to vote you had to register as a U.S. American. The choice was to become a state or remain a territory. Both unlawful.
The kidnapper of your child asks you if the child can change its name to Sam or remain with the original name he gave your child, Terri. You don't want to agree because you gave him the name Harry, so he asks his wife and she agrees in your stead. Your child is re-named Sam; but is not returned to you. You want Harry back. The judge in the court is Sam's brother-in-law. What do you do?