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.
News release from Rep. Carroll: HCR107_
It concludes with this:
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.”
Finally. Let us end this lie and put our future in our hands. Mahalo Mele.
Executive agreements are not treaties. Treaties must be ratified by the U.S. Senate under the U.S. Constitution. Those can be “express” or “implied” when several treaties are attached to each other like rider legislation on a Bill, so to speak. The Uruguay Round Trade Agreement is a good example of multiple treaties being attached to and ratified under an umbrella treaty.
The Belmont and Pink cases arose out of the progressivist (communist) F.D. Roosevelt regime that was operating under a constant state of declared emergency (rule of necessity) and was directly involved in unprecedented power grabs while everyone else was held under economic duress or in a declared state of war and their attentions were necessarily diverted. The Belmont executive agreement was with Communist Russia at that time. I would have to go back and check but I believe that Pink arose over an executive agreement with Communist Russia too.
One would have to review the actual executive agreements. They were obviously not binding after that particular executive office tenure even though they were entered into in good faith and with just cause. If those executive agreements had been binding upon succeeding administrations, like perfected treaty contracts, Hawai’i would not be in the subjugated and occupied condition that it is in today.
Maybe the legislative proponents can find some more radical judges to go along with the premise or use those executive agreements to influence the State legislature. The objective of HCR107, however, is intended to do a study and final report regarding the Supremacy Clause (separation of powers doctrine).
Regardless of anyone’s opinion about executive agreements one must only look at the facts. U.S. v Belmont, U.S. v. Pink and American Insurance Association v. Garamendi have never been over turned. The Defendants and the Judge in Sai v. Clinton never challenged those rulings. In fact the Judge acknowledges that both the Lili’uokalani Assignment and the Agreement of Restoration exist as executive agreements that bind the executive and his successors in office. In her Order she admits the court could resolve this case “through a straightforward analysis of federal and international law”. The only thing stopping her is a political question, which Dr. Sai provided the answer for in his motion to reconsider which will be rlued on in the near future. Representative Caroll’s actions are proper and prudent in that violations of an executive agreement would be a violation of one’s oath of office and could be held liable for damages in their professional and personal capasity if they cause an injury.
If the Executive Agreements are not treaties and are not binding upon the successor office of the U.S. Presidency that would mean nothing happened on January 17, 1893 and President Cleveland overstepped his authority by imposing conditions for a bogas restoration!
Agian, if noting happened between the two countries, what is the State of Hawaii doing here? The State of Hawaii does not exist! In essence, we give them an inch to prevent blood shed and they felt comppelled to take 4 million acres. I don’t think so!
In essence, the Hawaiian Military could have inflicted harm on the American military personal without incurring any U.S. military conflict? I think not!
The Executive Agreements are a necessary extension of the Executive branch of government in order resolve immediate relief from actual conflict, they can’t wait for perfection from U.S. congress to resolve every international matter!
What is not a treaty is the U.S. House Joint Resolution to annex Hawaii, which in reality has no affect over another independent nation State the Hawaiin Kingdom.
No matter how perfected that U.S. HJR to annex Hawaii it’s still not a treaty! No treaty, no business in the Hawaiian Islands. In football a flag would’ve been thrown for offsides! Penalty; restitution for 118 years and much, much more!
Perhaps the monarchy should declare a State of Emergency for the Nation of Hawaii and by executive order…restore the rule back to Hawaii….
The Lili’uokalani Assingment temporarily and conditionaly yeilded the executive power to the president (executive) of the United States because of a state of emergency. The president holds the authority and the obligation to administer the laws of the kingdom and laws of occupation. The executive power will be returned when he fulfills the Agreement of restoration but until then he is bound by the first executive agreement. No executive order can be made on behalf of the Hawaiian nation until the conclusion of the second executive agreement.
It is time that we, the children of Hawaii take a stand and fight for what was our own. Mahalo nui Mele for your great inspiration. Eo Ke Aupuni Moi O Hawaii pae aina. E ola!