Hawaiian federal recognition noticed in blogosphere

The federal recognition debate appears to be gaining some notice on the right edge of the blogosphere.

Monday, a Michelle Malkin post entitled Hawaii's Secessionists discusses the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs hearing that was held the next day. She quotes conservative constitutional attorney Bruce Fein from his earlier Washington Times commentary on the Akaka bill.

First, Malkin has absolutely no credibility with me (she has defended the internment of Japanese-Americans during WWII, and racial profiling of Arabs in the "War On Terror," and has been soundly discredited by many sources, but MalkinWatch blog is a good place to start.) I do agree with her that "Giving descendents of Native Hawaiians Indian tribal-like sovereignty is historically absurd." She ignores, however, the real and historically valid issue of Hawaiian nationality, which includes but is not exclusive to Native Hawaiians, and is not an issue of race. So I agree with her in being opposed to the Akaka bill and federal recognition, but for very different reasons.

Fein is currently here in Hawaii doing several events, finishing today with a panel discussion on how the Akaka Bill will affect business in Hawaii from 11:45 to 2:15 at the Pacific Club, co-sponsored by Small Business Hawaii and Grassroot Institute of Hawaii. (He published a piece in the Hawaii reporter last month.) I can't report firsthand about any of his appearances, but Derek Kauanoe, who I know is highly knowledgeable and carefully accurate regarding the facts of the Hawaiian Kingdom history, reported Thursday that Fein was woefully ignorant of Hawaiian Kingdom history and made numerous erroneous statements. Derek says:

Yesterday, there was a "last minute organized debate" sponsored by the Federalist Society, between Bruce Fein (against Akaka) and Sherry Broder (for Akaka), at the UH Richardson School of Law. This was a very interesting event, primarily because, during the Q&A period, there was no debate between Sherry Broder and Bruce Fein. Nor was there a debate during the Q&A for or against Akaka. Law school students, aboriginal Hawaiian and non-aboriginals, argued against Bruce Fein's inaccurate telling of Hawaiian Kingdom history.
[...]
Fein [made] several inaccurate assertions throughout his presentation. He erroneously claims that Monarch had all the power. He went on to add that there is case law to prove it. After the debate, I asked him, which case law could he cite, and his response was, Rex. v. Booth. For those who know how to use legal citations, the citation for that case is, 2 Haw. 616. I suspect he mis-read or mis-understands the court in that case. In the court opinion, the justices indeed recognized that the Monarch had (emphasis on had in the past tense). But, they went on to state that the Monarch divested himself of all the power. Furthermore, as Keanu Sai pointed out to me at the debate, the court described the functioning of the Legislative Assembly, Monarch, House of Nobles, and House of Representatives as acting in unison with one another. This is distinctly different from the Monarch acting alone to amend laws or the constitution.

So anyway, Fein may be considered an expert at U.S. constitutional law, but apparently his research and knowledge of Hawaiian constitutional law and history is quite lacking. Anyone who thinks Hawaii was an absolute monarchy (at least for the last 50 years of its unoccupied existence) hasn't the first clue about the real history. Again, no credibility on the issue there. (The fact that the event was sponsored by what Prof. Francis Boyle rightly calls the "right-wing racist reactionary" Feddies says a lot right there.)

But anyway, back to the blogosphere...

Under a post "Full Sovereignty for Hapa Hawaii?" David at the Faute de Mieux blog quotes Malkin and asks "What would a 'reorganized' Hawaii look like? There's no telling. But I think it's safe to say that it will involve lots of casinos." Apparently ignorant of the fact that the Akaka bill explicitly says "Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize the Native Hawaiian governing entity to conduct gaming activities under the authority of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act." And that Hawaii is I believe one of the only states which outlaws all organized gaming, and that gaming is strongly opposed by both the general population, and the supporters of both federal recognition and independence.

Razor in Bennelli Brothers blog, cites Malkin and posts, "OK, maybe it's not quite 'secession', but damn near close..." and again speculates on gambling money behind it. Try Alaskan oil drilling money instead.

Nate makes a general post on secessionism, including a reference to Malkin and Native Hawaiians. Again, of course federal recognition has nothing to do with secession, and even independence cannot be accurately termed secession since it is about the continuity of an occupied country. No cession, thus no secession.

Posted: Fri - March 4, 2005 at 10:40 AM

getBlogName(); > getCategoryName("C608676235"); >

Hawaiian federal recognition noticed in blogosphere

> >