This blog is about Hawaii's status as an independent country under prolonged illegal occupation by the United States, and the history, culture, law & politics of the islands.
By Scott Crawford, Hana, Maui
|
Blogs.com Top 10
Hawaii Blogs |
|
Star-Advertiser reports:
The last remaining court challenge to Kamehameha Schools’ admissions policy giving preference to native Hawaiians came to an end yesterday when the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the case of four unidentified students who contended the practice violates federal civil rights laws.
This article in today’s Travel section of the San Francisco Chronicle
If, like me, you believe no place is heaven on earth, you won’t be surprised to learn that San Francisco-based Global Exchange is promoting a new Reality Tour — a program usually associated with Third World destinations such as Afghanistan, Guatemala or Vietnam — to Hawaii, one that promises to uncover all sorts of trouble in paradise.
Loss of indigenous sovereignty? Check. Militarization? Check. Cultural and environmental degradation? Well, you get the picture. But do you really need to join a tour group to discover those pressing concerns — which Global Exchange says are “rarely mentioned by the media, the travel industry or the local government” — or to have meaningful encounters with island residents working to reverse or mitigate them?
Since the first Reality Tour doesn’t debut until Dec. 16-23, 2011, it may be a little premature as well as uncharitable to answer those questions with “uncheck.” But I can note tour highlights as described in the Global Exchange press release, with my suggestions for do-it-yourselfers (and think-for-yourselfers) in the interim. Like the Reality Tour, I’ll keep the focus on Oahu, but be aware all of the islands provide windows into past and current conflicts — for those willing to see them.
It continues with several recommendations for politically interested travelers, including this tidbit:
And anywhere you see a Hawaiian flag flying upside down, or a yellow, green and red “Kanaka Maoli” flag, you’ll find a supporter of Hawaiian sovereignty. While you won’t find widespread agreement on what that means, exactly, if you ask respectfully and listen carefully, you’ll at least learn about the passion the subject inspires on all sides.
Actually, anywhere you see a Hawaiian flag without a U.S. flag, you’ll find a supporter of sovereignty. Out here in East Maui, there are many Hawaiian flags flying right-side up but by themselves.
HuffPo has an amusing piece on “Obama’s Birth Certificate Through The Eyes Of A Birther” and pointing to the “State of Hawaii” in the upper left corner, they have “Is it 100% verified that Hawaii was a state in 1961?” Well, as a matter of fact it wasn’t. And as Dr. Sai noted earlier:
As for President Obama, Nixon v. Fitzgerald would give immunity to the President from lawsuits, but President Obama can’t claim to be a bona fide President since the U.S. Constitution requires the President to be a natural born citizen. Since President Obama was born in the Hawaiian Kingdom, and not born in the United States, he is a President de facto (in fact). Nixon v. Fitzgerald only applies to Presidents de jure (by law). I am not claiming Barack Obama is not a U.S. citizen, because he is by his mother (jus sanguinis). He is, however, not a natural born citizen (jus soli), which is a constitutional requirement to be President. During occupations of a country, international law prevents individuals from acquiring the citizenship of the occupied state through birth on the soil (jus soli) and can only acquire citizenship from their parents (jus sanguinis).
Now that the “birthers” biggest argument—that Obama wasn’t born in Hawaii—has been even further discredited than it was already, I wonder if they will latch on to the idea that Obama isn’t a natural-born citizen because Hawaii was not truly part of the United States at the time. It’s a serious argument made for completely different reasons, but they may find it convenient for their purposes as well. That would put them in the seemingly uncomfortable position of agreeing with the argument that the U.S. presence in Hawaii is indeed an occupation…
From Dr. Sai…
UPDATE: APRIL 18, 2011 — On April 6, 2011, U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly issues Order denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider. In her Order, Judge Kollar-Kotelly, states, “Plaintiff argues that the Court misapplied the political question doctrine and erred in holding that it lacks jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s Complaint. In this regard, Plaintiff’s motion is an attempt to reargue the merits of his case. Plaintiff has not identified any intervening change in controlling law or new evidence that compels the Court to reconsider its prior ruling.” It is the position of the Plaintiff that the Court erred and committed a grave error because unlike Taiwan in Lin v. United States, which the Court used to justify the application of the political question doctrine, the Hawaiian Kingdom had been recognized as a sovereign State since December 19, 1842 by U.S. President John Tyler. Plaintiff will appeal this order to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. According to the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, Plaintiff has 60 days from date of the Order to file an appeal since Defendants are U.S. government officers.
A U.S. District Court “accepts as true all the factual allegations contained in the complaint when reviewing a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1).” Leatherman v. Tarrant County Narcotics Intelligence & Coordination Unit, 507 U.S. 163, 164 (1993). In other words, the court has accepted, and the Defendants have not denied, the factual allegations in the amended complaint that the rights of the Plaintiff have been violated as a direct result of the Defendants’ violation of the Lili’uokalani assignment, but the Court cannot move on the matter because, in its eyes, the political question doctrine prevents it. This is very different from a case being dismissed under Rule 12(b)6, which is failure state a claim upon which relief can be granted, i.e. the Lili’uokalani assignment fails to exist or is not an executive agreement, thereby Plaintiff cannot sue.
In order to continue moving forward in the legislature, House Reso 107 “… TO INVESTIGATE THE STATUS OF TWO EXECUTIVE AGREEMENTS ENTERED INTO IN 1893 BETWEEN UNITED STATES PRESIDENT GROVER CLEVELAND AND QUEEN LILI’UOKALANI OF THE HAWAIIAN KINGDOM” needs to be either heard or waived off from the House Judiciary Committee and Legislative Management Committee. Please take a moment today to contact Rep. Keith-Agaran and Rep. Yamashita , the chairs of these respective committees, and encourage them to waive off HR107.
Star-Advertiser reports
The Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act is scheduled to go tomorrow [Wednesday] before the U.S. Senate Indian Affairs Committee, whose chairman, Sen. Daniel Akaka, aims to have a vote on the measure.
If favorably reported out of the committee, the bill would be added to the Senate calendar for consideration by the full chamber.
Release from OHA…
The Office of Hawaiian Affairs today formally unveiled the Papakilo Database, a new electronic cultural resource. The Papakilo Database is a “database of databases,” or a search engine for Hawaiian cultural information.
The Papakilo Database has been in development since 2007 and is the first to collate more than 225,000 records from dissimilar databases into a single digital resource. It pulls together several databases of land and government records, historic Hawaiian language newspapers and certain historic genealogy indexes.
Previously, people seeking many of these records would have to spend a lot of time visiting various offices and agencies. Papakilo Database makes the records available online and many records and databases can be searched with just a few keystrokes.
The Papakilo Database will be the central repository for Hawaiian knowledge and will serve as a knowledge base for self-determination. Native Hawaiians have a great tradition of sharing information and passing down knowledge. Traditionally, we did this orally by telling stories. With Papakilo we’re doing it with technology.
The Papakilo Database can be found at papakilodatabase.com.
From Dr. Sai…
UPDATE: APRIL 2, 2011 — On April 2, 2011, Plaintiff filed Plaintiff’s Reply to Federal Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider. In Plaintiff’s Reply it states “Defendants allege Plaintiff is rearguing facts and theories that the court has already ruled and that ‘Plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider reads more like his previous filings that it does a fresh look at the issues in this case.’ This is not so. As stated by Defendants in its Opposition, Plaintiff can succeed on his motion to reconsider if he can demonstrate some ‘intervening change in controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or the need to correct a clear error or manifest injustice.’ Plaintiff’s motion was filed to ‘correct a clear error’ of the Court’s application of Lin v. United States, 561 F.3d 502; 385 U.S. App. D.C. 191 (2009), and the political question doctrine because unlike Taiwan, the U.S. Executive did recognize the sovereignty of the Hawaiian Kingdom since 1842, which has not been denied by Defendants throughout these proceedings.” Plaintiff also filed Notice of Maui County Council Resolution Urging Support of the Intent of House of Concurrent Resolution no. 107, Establishing a Joint Legislative Investigating Committee to Investigate the Status of executive agreements known as the Lili’uokalani Assignment and the Agreement of Restoration.
From an article in The Maui News
Maui County Council members gave unanimous support Friday for a move in the state Legislature to convene a panel to probe two executive agreements related to the 1893 overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy.
Council Member Elle Cochran, who initiated county support of state House Concurrent Resolution 107, said the council action does not commit it to a position on the matter but does support the intent to gather more information.
The resolution was introduced in the state Legislature by state Rep. Mele Carroll, who represents residents of East Maui, Molokai and Lanai. It would establish “a joint legislative committee to investigate the status of executive agreements known as the Lili’uokalani Assignment and the Agreement of Restoration.”
According to the resolution, one document provided for Queen Lili’uokalani, under protest, to temporarily yield her authority to the government of the United States to avoid bloodshed. A second document, or agreement, provided that Lili’uokalani would provide amnesty to those who overthrew her government.
The resolution says that “President Cleveland and his successors in office have violated these agreements by not administering Hawaiian Kingdom law and not restoring the Hawaiian Kingdom government.”
State House members approved the resolution Thursday.
Maui Council Reso (PDF)
|
|
