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.
Well my mention of Sarah Vowell’s appearance on The Daily Show to promote her new book “Unfamiliar Fishes” about Hawaii apparently rated a mention in the New York TimesInside the List column…
Sarah Vowell hits No. 5 on the hardcover nonfiction list with “Unfamiliar Fishes,” her wry account of the annexation and Americanization of Hawaii.
[…]
Vowell has gotten some friendly notice in the Hawaiian media, including a plug on the Hawaiian Kingdom Independence Blog, which argues that Hawaii is a sovereign nation under illegal occupation by the United States.
Hopefully get it out there a bit that this is an issue with current relevance, not just historical interest.
Here’s the review of Sarah’s book in the NYT Sunday Book Review.
Against seemingly long odds in both chambers of Congress, U.S. Sen. Daniel Akaka renewed his long-standing effort to secure federal recognition for native Hawaiians.
Akaka and Democratic colleague U.S. Sen. Dan Inouye introduced yesterday the latest version of the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act, better known as the Akaka Bill. Democratic U.S. Reps. Mazie Hirono and Colleen Hanabusa introduced the same bill in the House.
[…]
At least one political analyst expects the measure to be dead on arrival in the partisan atmosphere of the nation’s capital. “I don’t think there’s any chance at all it would get passed,” said Neal Milner, a University of Hawaii political scientist.
UPDATE: MARCH 29, 2011 — On March 28, 2011, the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia filed Federal Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider. The Court will determine whether to rescind and/or revise the Order or deny Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration. Either way it will be appealed by either party to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, known informally as the D.C. Circuit. The U.S. Attorney in its Opposition made no mention of the misapplication by the Court of a 2009 federal lawsuit out of the D.C. Circuit, Lin v. United States, justifying the Court’s assertion of the political question doctrine as expounded in Plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider. As stated in Plaintiff’s Motion, in Lin v. United States, the D.C. Circuit, stated, “Once the Executive determines Taiwan’s sovereign, we can decide Appellants’ resulting status and concomitant rights expeditiously. (‘[T]he judiciary ordinarily follows the executive as to which nation has sovereignty over disputed territory, once sovereignty over an area is politically determined and declared, courts may examine the resulting status and decide independently whether a statute applies to that area.’)” The difference between Taiwan and the Hawaiian Kingdom is that recognition of Hawaiian sovereignty was afforded by the U.S. President [Executive] on July 6, 1844. Therefore, Plaintiff argues Lin v. United States cannot be used to invoke the political question doctrine in this case and therefore the Court “can decide [Plaintiff’s] resulting status and concomitant rights expeditiously.”
The fundamental question for the Court to determine is whether or not sovereignty of a country [state] can be withdrawn arbitrarily by the U.S. President [Executive] after it was previously afforded by his predecessor in office, namely President John Tyler. In the Motion to Reconsider, Plaintiff argues “Once recognition of the Hawaiian Kingdom as an independent State was granted by the Executive, see Amend. Compl. para. 11, Professor Oppenheim asserts that it ‘is incapable of withdrawal’ by the recognizing State. See Lassa Oppenheim, International Law: A Treatise, vol. I (3d. 1920), at 137. Professor Schwarzenberger also asserts, that ‘recognition estops the State which has recognized the title from contesting its validity at any future time.’ See Georg Schwarzenberger, Title to Territory: Response to a Challenge, Am. J. Int’l L., 51, no. 2 (1957): 308-324, at 316. Professor Craven opines, that Hawaiian sovereignty ‘may be refuted only by reference to a valid demonstration of legal title, or sovereignty, on the part of the United States.’ See Matthew Craven, Continuity of the Hawaiian Kingdom, 1 Hawn. J.L. & Politics 508-544, 512 (Summer 2004).” Website for the lawsuit is at http://hawaiiankingdom.org/sai-obama.shtml.
Star-Advertiser‘s Burl Burlingame interviews author Sarah Vowell as she “explores the ‘eccentric corners’ of history to tell the story of the Americanization of Hawaii” in Unfamiliar Fishes.
Resolution on recasting the document in the hand of the McKinley statue (McKinley holds a ‘Treaty of Annexation’ which historically does not exist) is being heard in Rep. Faye Hanohano’s Hawaiian Affairs Committee on Wednesday, March 30, 8:30 am, Room 329. Please submit testimony in support of this reso HCR293.
HCR293 EXPRESSING LEGISLATIVE SUPPORT FOR AND REQUESTING THE REMOVAL OF THE TERM “TREATY OF ANNEXATION” CAST IN BRONZE ON THE STATUE OF PRESIDENT MCKINLEY ON THE GROUNDS OF MCKINLEY HIGH SCHOOL. HAW
HCR 107 “Establishing a joint legislative investigating committee 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, called the Lili’uokalani Assignment and the Agreement of Restoration” has passed the House Committee on Hawaiian Affairs. It will now move to the floor of the House of Representatives for debate, and then move on to the House Judiciary Committee.
Here’s a video on youtube that was posted by a person who was present at the hearing. Yesterday evening Representative Mele Carroll video taped her show at the capital with Dr. Keanu Sai, Willy Kauai, Ph.D. candidate and Assistant Professor Lynette Cruz as guests. Great dialogue and engagement of the executive agreements should be airing soon on cable access on all islands.
Update: Here’s Rep. Carroll’s show on HCR 107 done the evening of the day the resolution passed the Hawaiian Affairs Committee.
This is absolute must watch. We’ve seen Sarah Vowell on The Daily Show before, and enjoy how she shares history with her dry wit and puts things in ways you can easily relate to. As Jon says, “I laugh, but I learn.”
Well, now she’s written a book on Hawai’i, Unfamiliar Fishes. She describes the “orgy of imperialism” of the summer of 1898. And she nails it. Kekula said when it was over, “that was one of the most comprehensive statements on Hawaii ever presented in such a broad media.” A whole lot of very well-informed, engaged people watch Jon Stewart. And the way she explained it was a truth that many people probably heard for the first time. A lot of people will read her book. She explains the context of the Spanish-American War, the role for Hawaii as “a naval base for our forthcoming invasions,” the missionary family children who “overthrew the Hawaiian queen so as to hand the Hawaiian Islands over to the United States,” mentions the anti-annexation petitions, and compares the joint resolution as “the sort of law New Jersey would use to declare a day Jon Bon Jovi Day.”
By Sarah Vowell
(Riverhead Hardcover, Hardcover, 9781594487873, 256pp.)
Publication Date: March 22, 2011
Description
From the bestselling author of The Wordy Shipmates, an examination of Hawaii, the place where Manifest Destiny got a sunburn.
Many think of 1776 as the defining year of American history, when we became a nation devoted to the pursuit of happiness through self- government. In Unfamiliar Fishes, Sarah Vowell argues that 1898 might be a year just as defining, when, in an orgy of imperialism, the United States annexed Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and Guam, and invaded first Cuba, then the Philippines, becoming an international superpower practically overnight.
Among the developments in these outposts of 1898, Vowell considers the Americanization of Hawaii the most intriguing. From the arrival of New England missionaries in 1820, their goal to Christianize the local heathen, to the coup d’état of the missionaries’ sons in 1893, which overthrew the Hawaiian queen, the events leading up to American annexation feature a cast of beguiling, and often appealing or tragic, characters: whalers who fired cannons at the Bible-thumpers denying them their God-given right to whores, an incestuous princess pulled between her new god and her brother-husband, sugar barons, lepers, con men, Theodore Roosevelt, and the last Hawaiian queen, a songwriter whose sentimental ode “Aloha ‘Oe” serenaded the first Hawaiian president of the United States during his 2009 inaugural parade.
With her trademark smart-alecky insights and reporting, Vowell lights out to discover the off, emblematic, and exceptional history of the fiftieth state, and in so doing finds America, warts and all.
HONOLULU—On Monday, March 14, 2011, Representative Mele Carroll introduced House Concurrent Resolution 107 calling for the establishment of a joint legislative investigating committee to investigate the status of two executive agreements entered into in 1893 between the United States President Grover Cleveland and Queen Lili‘uokalani of the Hawaiian Kingdom, called the Lili‘uokalani Assignment (January 17, 1893) and the Agreement of Restoration (December 18, 1893). The Lili‘uokalani Assignment mandates the President to administer Hawaiian Kingdom law, and the Agreement of Restoration mandates the President to restore the Hawaiian Kingdom government as it was prior to illegal landing of U.S. troops on January 16, 1893, and thereafter the Queen to grant amnesty to certain people who committed treason.
The purpose and duties of the joint investigating committee shall be to inquire into the status of the executive agreements by holding meetings and hearings as necessary, receiving all information from the inquiry, and submitting a final report to the Legislature. Representative Mele Carroll stated that the purpose of House Concurrent Resolution 107 is to “ensure that we, as Legislators, who took an oath to support and defend not only the Constitution of the State of Hawai‘i, but also the Constitution of the United States, must be mindful of our fiduciary duty and obligation to conform to the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution. As Majority Whip for the House of Representatives of the State of Hawai‘i, it is my duty to bring the executive agreements to the attention of the Hawai‘i State Legislature and that the joint investigating committee have the powers necessary to receive all information for its final report to the Legislature.”
UPDATE: MARCH 13, 2011 — On March 13, 2011, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Reconsider Order Granting Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Complaint. Plaintiff’s Motion concludes: “In its Order, the Court admits it could resolve this case “through a straightforward analysis of federal and international law,” but declines to do so because of the political question doctrine. As stated above, the political question doctrine is a flawed legal argument that fails to support Defendants’ motion to dismiss because the U.S. Executive recognized Hawai`i as a sovereign and independent State since 1844, and the Lili`uokalani assignment is an extension of that sovereignty fully recognized and adhered to by President Cleveland in 1893 in his negotiations with Queen Lili`uokalani, executive of the Hawaiian Kingdom. Accordingly, the Court’s analysis of case law, rules, statutes and the political question doctrine have no relevance to the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendants under the Lili`uokalani assignment, whereby this Court has subject matter jurisdiction under the Alien Tort Statute, 28 U.S.C. §1350. For these reasons set forth above, this Court’s Order should be reconsidered and Defendants’ motion to dismiss should be denied. The Motion, as well as all court filings, can be downloaded at http://hawaiiankingdom.org/sai-obama.shtml under the heading “Court Docket Filings.”
UPDATE: MARCH 10, 2011 — On March 9, 2011, U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly issues Order granting the U.S. Attorney’s motion to dismiss. In her opinion, Judge Kollar-Kotelly, states, “Plaintiff argues that he is not challenging the legality of the State of Hawaii and his conviction but is merely asserting a claim for a violation of the Liliuokalani Assignment under the Alien Tort Statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1350. However, in order to find that Defendants have violated the Liliuokalani Assignment as alleged by Plaintiff—or even to conclude that Plaintiff is an alien capable of bringing claims under the Alien Tort Statute rather than a U.S. citizen—the Court would have to determine that the annexation of Hawaii by the United States was unlawful and void. As described above, that is a political question that this Court cannot decide. The fact that the answer might be gleaned through a straightforward analysis of federal and international law does not matter; “[t]he political question doctrine deprives federal courts of jurisdiction, based on prudential concerns, over cases which would normally fall within their purview.” Lin, 561 F.3d at 506; see id. (“We do not disagree with Appellants’ assertion that we could resolve this case through treaty analysis and statutory construction; we merely decline to do so as this case presents a political question which strips us of jurisdiction to undertake that otherwise familiar task.“) (internal citations omitted). Therefore, the Court must dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.”
What is profound is that the Court admits the existence of the executive agreements, which is the basis of Plaintiff’s claim for relief, and the case can be resolved through treaty analysis and statutory construction, but because of the political question doctrine they are unable to grant relief to the Plaintiff for tort injuries. An appeal will be made to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals that will address why the political question doctrine should not prevent the Court from granting relief in an Alien Tort Statute case. The Court also distinguished between a 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss on subject matter jurisdictional grounds, which assumes facts alleged in the complaint to be true; and a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for Plaintiff’s complaint for failing to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, where the basis of the lawsuit, which is the executive agreement, does not exist. The Court stated this is not a 12(b)(6) motion.
