Sai v. Obama – U.S. Attorney files Reply

From Keanu re Sai v. Obama et al:

UPDATE. U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, on behalf of Federal Defendants, files Reply in Further Support of Their Motion to Dismiss. To download Federal Defendants Reply to Plaintiff’s Opposition go to http://hawaiiankingdom.org/sai-obama.shtml under “Court Docket Filings.” I will be periodically updating “Court Docket Filings” as documents are being filed with the Federal District Court in Washington, D.C.

The gist of the Federal Defendants argument is that since the Hawaiian Islands became a State of the Federal Union in 1959 under “An Act to Provide for the Admission of the State of Hawaii into the Union,” Pub. L. No. 86-3, 73 U.S. Stat. 4, it’s a political question that bars the Court from hearing the case because they argue that the legal status of Hawai`i was committed to Congress and not the Court. The Federal Defendants have made no mention or argument relying on the “Joint Resolution to provide for annexing the Hawaiian Islands to the United States,” 30 U.S. Stat. 750 (1898). The fatal flaw of this argument is that Congressional laws are limited to U.S. territory and have no force and effect beyond U.S. borders, and therefore Congress could no more annex the Hawaiian Islands than it could annex and bring Canada the Union a State. The 1959 Statehood Act was based on the 1898 Joint Resolution of annexation of the Hawaiian Islands and the 1900 Organic Act that established the Territory of Hawai`i. The Statehood Act did not annex, but merely attempted to transform the Territory of Hawai`i into a State of the Federal Union. The Federal Defendants have not denied the existence of the 1893 Lili`uokalani assignment and the Agreement of restoration, both being executive agreements under the sole authority of the U.S. President in foreign relations.