From Dr. Sai…
UPDATE: MAY 27, 2011 — On May 26, 2011, Plaintiff filed a Civil Notice of Appeal from the Opinion and Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider Order Granting Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File a Supplemental Complaint entered on April 6, 2011. Since United States government officials are parties in the lawsuit, there is a 60 day window to file an appeal from the date of the Order. Appeals from the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., will take place at the U.S. District Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The sole issue on appeal is the U.S. District Court’s application of the political question doctrine, which it says prevents it from adjudicating Plaintiff’s lawsuit.
The fundamental issue on appeal will center on whether or not a U.S. President can withdraw recognition of Hawaiian state sovereignty after a previous U.S. President afforded explicit recognition of Hawaiian state sovereignty on July 6, 1844, thereby creating, as the U.S. District determined, a political question until Hawaiian state sovereignty is re-recognized by a subsquent U.S. President. The Plaintiff maintains that international law prevents a recognizing state from de-recognizing another state’s sovereignty, because recognition of state sovereignty is a political act with legal consquences. International law, however, does not prevent a recognizing state from de-recognizing another state’s government, which is often referred to as diplomatic recognition. Example: The United States recognized Cuba’s state sovereignty in 1925, but derecognized the Castro government in 1961. The withdrawal of the recognition of Castro’s government was not a withdrawal of the United States’ recognition of Cuban state sovereignty. Cuba continued to exist as a sovereign state, despite the derecognition of the Castro government.
Ah, Maui lasso that Sun and make it stop! I see now it’s a tug of war between opposing parties….imua Hawai’i!…or should I say ihope and pull that buggah across da line!
International law, however, does not prevent a recognizing state from de-recognizing another state’s government, which is often referred to as diplomatic recognition. SO then does the Hawaiian Kingdom from the time of the overthrow till today meet the requirements for diplomatic recognition. If so i would love to see it pointed out!
Aloha,
I think the question to ask is; when did the U.S. de-recognize Hawaiian independence?
The only opportunity for the U.S. to de-recognize Hawaii’s independence would’ve
been after the December 18, 1893 Restoration Agreement, all evidence support that!
That would mean de-recognition had to have taken place while the U.S. failed to meet
its obligation to restore the Queen’s authority and while the Provisional Government
was the de facto authority in the Hawaiian Islands.
The Provisional Government had absolutely no authority in the affairs of the Hawaiian Kingdom and the restoration agreement is an estoppel preventing any unlawful transactions concerning the Kingdom.
The U.S. by de-recognizing the lawful Hawaiian Kingdom and simultaneously recognizing the unlawful Hawaiian Kingdom Provisional Government provided the perfect opportunity to “Annex” Hawaii. The 1897 Ku’e Petition put a stop to that nonsense, yet the U.S. went ahead with the Newlands Resolution to “Annex” Hawaii.
It doesn’t look good for the U.S. we can clearly see the switch-off and illegal hand-off.
Everyone can now clearly see that the U.S. indeed participated in a wrongful act against a friendly Nation. A Nation that God’s favor is upon! The Political Question Doctrine is the cover for this hewa, open it up and the U.S. will have no choice but to fall apart!
That is why the external sovereignty of the Hawaiian Kingdom is still recognized globally, but we are still having so much trouble with the State of Hawaii.
It’s just a matter of time before this burden will be lifted and justice served!
Mahalo!
To respond to Win8o8;
The PoG had no authority, neither de jure nor de facto president Cleveland cites that so why would you even cite that?
This whole notion of de-recognition seems premature since i noted this before. In order to be recognized there was a requirement or criteria that was necessary in order to get it. I will even point it out for everyone!
1. Geographical Land-base = The Hawaiian Islands
2. Distinct Population = Subjects of the Hawaiian Kingdom “Nationals”
3. Functioning Government = Constitutional Monarchy
4. Ability to exercise Sovereignty itself = Governing relations between nations
Now since the four requirements were achieved yes we were recognized but after the 17th 1893 number three and four were not working. Thus we never loss or got de-recognize our recognition status “de jure” but with the PoG interruption and then the Republic “de facto” involvement till today what we have is a right, some call it an Inherent right to that de jure status.
Now the money question how do we achieve that “de jure” status again? Isnt #3 the key??????????
Mahalo for all of your discussion! As the Hawaiian Kingdom it is necessary to have these kinds of discussions even though a functioning government is not in place presently.
Aloha Kealii8,
There is no dispute on your contention, Hawai’i was indeed recognized as an independent nation state on November 28, 1843 and its external sovereignty remains unto this day! The criteria for the qualifications to be a nation is not in question, however the point I am
making is to question when did U.S. de-recognition of Hawai’i take place? [Rhetorical] As you clearly stated “International law, however, does not prevent a recognizing state from de-recognizing another state’s government, which is often referred to as diplomatic recognition.” So the Political Question Doctrine serves to cover up something that could have otherwise been adjudicated in a lawful manner! Now you and I know that the Queen signed into effect the restoration agreement. That means the U.S. recognized Hawaii as an independent nation up to that particular second! That contract is binding unto this day on the office of the U.S. President. That is a simple matter up to that point. Think about this now, if the U.S. after 12/18/1893 until today recognized Hawaii as an independent nation state, there would be no State of Hawaii and no State of Hawaii judicial system. Something is causing the Kanaka’s claim in the U.S. courts to be discounted, what though?
Now we see in Dr. Sai’s case in the arguments that the U.S. Defendants are questioning their recognition of Hawai’i, why? What about November 28, 1843? What about U.S. recognition of the Hawaiian Kingdom on or about July 6, 1844? Like you stated “…
“International law, however, does not prevent a recognizing state from de-recognizing another state’s government, …” I agree with that as in Dr. Sai’s statement about U.S. recognition and de-recognition of Cuba. The de-recognition of Cuba only cuts off U.S. interaction with that Country and not Cuba’s independent status as a Country. If Cuba had a dispute against the U.S. and initiated an action in court the Political Question Doctrine is not needed as it is definite that the U.S. de-recognized Cuba in 1961. With the Hawaiian Kingdom this is a problem! Why? How can the U.S. remain in Hawaiian jurisdictional waters if it RECOGNIZED Hawaii’s independence in 1844 without a treaty? That would be considered an Act of War by other Countries! Why not Hawai’i too? Whether or not the U.S. had officially de-recognize Hawaii is not openly known to us, however their actions of the Joint Resolution for Annexing Hawaii in 1898 and in 1900 making Hawaii a Territory of the U.S. and later State hood in 1959 certainly affirm that they no longer recognized the Hawaiian Kingdom’s independence! Like Cuba, does the U.S. have to answer an action brought on by a Hawaiian National, not sure now! The Political Question Doctrine is thrown in to cover up the mess that even the U.S. District Court of Hawaii couldn’t figure out how or perhaps care not to explain how Hawaii’s co-equal sovereign status to the U.S. vanished! You stated “SO then does the Hawaiian Kingdom from the time of the overthrow till today meet the requirements for diplomatic recognition.” It doesn’t really matter whether we qualify for recognition or not it is dependent on whether the U.S. extends recognition to the lawful Hawaiian Kingdom? So in answer to your question that would clearly be no! And the reason for it is because of the presence of the U.S. and State of Hawaii in Hawaiian Kingdom Jurisdictional waters without permission. But did the Hawaiian Kingdom loose its independent status, no! Again if the U.S. recognized the Hawaiian Kingdom they wouldn’t be here! You and I would demand that they leave! So how did they obtain authority if the Hawaiian Kingdom and its people did not give it to them? You later stated “The PoG had no authority, neither de jure nor de facto president Cleveland cites that…” I agree with that as I first stated “…all evidence support that!”
Where did the authority come from? It never came from the Queen as the Provisional Government arrested her in January of 1895! It never came from the sovereign nation of Hawaii, the people protested against Annexation by their signatures in 1897! It couldn’t have come from OHA or the Akaka Bill as it wasn’t available then! How then?
The only possible way would have been through the Provisional Government. I was not there and cannot verify that, however the surrounding context paints a clear picture of what and how things occurred!
For the U.S. to remain in Hawaiian Kingdom Jurisdictional waters it would have to de-recognize Hawaii and that is the reason why the State of Hawaii have discounted claims made by Hawaiian Nationals. If the Hawaiian Nationals exist the State of Hawaii doesn’t exist! The U.S. needed to recognize some entity, why not the Hawaiian Kingdom [Provisional Government] everyone would happy except for the true Hawaiian sovereign nationals, let them figure it out! You can see how confusion would set in by bracketing the Provisional Government!
Like you stated “The PoG had no authority, neither de jure nor de facto president Cleveland cites that…” That is critical along with U.S. Public Law 103-150, the Apology Bill, although not directly made to the true Hawaiian sovereign nationals it does trigger
admission of wrong doing on the part of the U.S. against the true Hawaiian Kingdom.
This present questions:
1. Can the U.S. de-recognize the Hawaiian Kingdom while it had a lawful obligation to
fulfill the two executive agreements it entered into with the occupied Hawaiian
Kingdom?
2. Can the U.S. be held to adjudicate the legal issues of the two executive agreements
under the U.S. Supremacy Clause if at some time after those agreements it
chose to de-recognize the true Hawaiian Kingdom?
3. Can the occupying U.S. choose to later (secretly) recognize the Hawaiian Kingdom
[Provisional Government] for the unlawful benefit to the U.S.?
4. Based upon Public Law 103-150, the Apology Bill, an internal U.S. public policy, can
the U.S. now be obligated to answer to the two 1893 executive agreements based upon their
admission of wrong doing they committed against the Hawaiian Kingdom since January 16, 1983?
To me, the U.S. along with the Provisional Government caused the problems many of us face today. One government is real and the other made up! You can see by the U.S. cutting off recognition to the true Hawaiian Kingdom how it has caused us many problems throughout the years, but because of our refusal to give in to a lie the real Hawaiian Kingdom is making its way back to where it belongs! Caveat, now is the time for the State of Hawaii to treat the Hawaiian Nationals with dignity and respect as the days of the made up government is nearing its end! The true Hawaiian Nationals are coming home!
I agree with Ka’ehunuiokaihe, mahalo for this blogsite and for allowing us the opportunity to have these discussions. Iron sharpens iron! Thank goodness for all the Po’e Aloha Aina for hanging in there when at times there was nearly nothing to hang on too! Thank goodness for the sense of pono that still reside in most of us, to do the right thing, thank goodness for our Queen who said: Onipaa and most of all Mahalo Nui to Ke Akua!
Soon we will win over the 808 State!
Mahalo for your reply and for allowing me to share my mana’o!
*However the point I am making is to question when did U.S. de-recognition of Hawai’i take place?
My whole take on this question is the day the queen vacated the throne January 17th 1893 the recognition of the kingdom didn’t get de-recognized it just stopped or went dormant because the kingdom was now not qualified. Like i stated above the 3rd element is missing. The queen is the Head of state so the government is and was missing its executive branch! Now today the branches of government are there they just need to be filled via Hawaiian kingdom law. Look at what transpired the PoG, the republic, the territory and state of hawaii there system of government closely resembles the Hawaiian Kingdoms! Why legal points have been made that all the de facto authorities claiming jurisdiction are nothing more then usurpers.
*You can see by the U.S. cutting off recognition to the true Hawaiian Kingdom how it has caused us many problems throughout the years, but because of our refusal to give in to a lie the real Hawaiian Kingdom is making its way back to where it belongs!
The problem has been other de facto governments “The Republic, Territory, State” exercising their authority! Because the de jure government of the Kingdom has not step forward to reclaim its standing esp with the U.S via the recognition process. De facto recognition is rescindable were as de jure is not!
I think the two biggest issues that the camp “sai” needs to have proven is there point of military occupation here in hawaii and are the executive agreements binding! Now i state this with all do respect we need experts in public international law and constitutional law to answer these points and we all know UH has people but are on the payroll of the state so that leaves them out. This Law suit is a good start but what happens if it fails, the people will be more demoralized. We should be undertaking this project ourselves not leaving it up to the Political Science dept just doesn’t cut it.
I got it!
The U.S. Congress, armed with the Morgan Report and the May 31, 1894 Turpie Resolution prevented President Grover Cleveland from restoring the Queen’s authority and under pressure, President Cleveland recognized the Republic of Hawaii on July 4, 1894. That however does not allow the U.S. to de-recognize Hawaiian Kingdom sovereignty! I can now see how the U.S. Supremacy clause will serve to obligate the U.S. to address a claim from a Hawaiian National!
No doubt, this subject is not easy to comprehend. Each individual is responsible for the information they receive. Qualification of information is vital to avoid demoralization and reliance on others without due diligence is a recipe for disaster! It appears that Dr. Sai has been aware of this information for a while now it’s me who is just now coming to an understanding. I may not be a fast learner, but I try my best in order to address this subject matter with sincerity! As an old saying goes: when the student is ready the teacher will appear! I wasn’t ready before! If the law suit initiated by Dr. Sai failed, then we learn from that failure and move forward!
In order for me to learn from his failure, I must first bring myself up to par!
I appreciate not only Dr. Sai, but all those who made or are making an effort to restore our Kingdom!
Nuff said!
There no doubt that your posts are with the fullest of sincerity, everyone who reads this thread will see there is a healthy discussion going on. Whats at odds here is the condition to which the Hawaiian Kingdom was in prior to January 18th 1893 and the legal status its in now. Recognition doctrine or the definition/qualification of state have been identified and confirmed to the Hawaiian Kingdom. So my take on your position and camp sai’s is why did the U.S not complete its obligation in putting the queen back on the throne thus completing the four requirements of state. This part of Hawaiian history is a very shady part for any historian or person with an opinion. My take is James blount came to Hawaii to investigate the unauthorized landing of marines and unlawful occupation. Aside from his report he orders the marines off island back to there ship and all american flags taken down thus returning the condition of Hawaii back to the Hawaiian Kingdom and ending the occupation. Now The queen should have listen too wilcox and seised the conspirators since they now had no protection and then would have announced that she is again ascending on to the throne and thus activating the recognition doctrine not only with the U.S but with the other Nations of the world. But instead they were left all alone and decided to reorganized themselves into a republic and sought recognition from everyone and got it although it was de facto.
I do appreciate your time and thoughts. Why we as a people cant organize ourselves let alone trust one another to meet and discuss/review this kind of subject matter else were is the real crime!!!
Aloha Kealii8,
The Hawaiian Kingdom = Real.
The Provisional Government = A treasonous government. A U.S. investigative report by James Blount affirmed that and the U.S. admitted that in a U.S. public law 103-150, the Apology Bill. The Provisional Government was proclaimed on January 17, 1893 by a 13 member group who called themselves the Committee of Safety. The Provisional Government later declared itself to be the Republic of Hawaii on July 4, 1894.
So the treasonous Provisional Government transformed itself into the Republic of Hawaii who then attempted to Annex Hawai’i by a proposed treaty of annexation to the U.S. but failed in large due to the overwhelming support of the Hawaiian Nationals by their signatures in protest to Annexation of the Hawaiian Islands to the U.S., the Ku’e petition.
Mahalo to Noenoe Silva, Nalani Minton, for all their hard work, and along with the UH Library for making this information available on the internet.
The Republic of Hawaii gained its transformation and authority from the treasonous Provisional Government and not from the legitimate Hawaiian Kingdom. Failing to get the required votes in the U.S. Congress to Annex Hawaii in 1898 because of the Ku’e petition, undeterred the U.S. Annexed Hawaii by a Joint Resolution known as the Newlands Resolution, this done in contrary to the voting already done in the U.S. Congress concerning the annexation.
U.S. Resolution No. 55 the “Newlands Resolution” an internal U.S. public policy (law) was approved on July 4, 1898 and signed into effect by U.S. President William McKinley on July 7, 1898, but to this day has no affect over the sovereign affairs of the Hawaiian Kingdom.
The Newlands Resolution lead Hawaii to be a Territory of the U.S. on April 30, 1900, again signed into effect by U.S. President William McKinley, known as the Organic Act which then lead to Hawaii becoming a union of the United States as the 50th State on August 21, 1959. Like the book says, Hawaii The Fake State! An accurate description! BTW: McKinley was the third U.S. President to be assassinated.
The independence of Hawaiian Kingdom is observed on November 28, since 1843 when the Hawaiian Islands in a joint Anglo-Franco proclamation was proclaimed an independent Nation State. La Ku’okoa! The independence remains unto this day albeit now occupied and oppressed by the U.S. and its State of Hawaii.
The Queen on January 17, 1893 temporarily yielded her authority (remember now the Hawaiian Kingdom system of government is a Constitutional one so the Queen’s authority is in her Executive capacity, not including the Judicial and Legislative capacities as that was not hers) to the superior force of the United State of America. This was done because the Sailors and Uniformed Marines from the USS Boston came ashore with weapons. They were not invited to do so and there was no explanation for the reason
of their presence on foreign soil, but in order to avoid bloodshed the Queen acted accordingly. (Today if the U.S. was to fly over foreign territory it would create a national incident!) (Imagine if the Sailors and Marines did this to the North Koreans or Russians today what would happen)
So that undertaking by the Queen on January 17, 1893 was the Executive Assignment of
her authority in which the U.S. had accepted. That is an International Compact, a treaty!
The U.S. was supposed to have implemented Hawaiian Kingdom laws until they had completed an investigation on whether the actions of their representatives were justified and restoration was completed.
(To date they have not done so and chose to recognize the Republic of Hawaii instead)
U.S. President Grover Cleveland appointed James Blount to investigate the events surrounding the January 17, 1893 assignment by the Hawaiian Queen. James Blount concluded in his report that indeed U.S. diplomatic and military representatives had abused their authority and were responsible for the change in government. See the Apology Bill, U.S. Public Law 103-150. (A full blown admission of wrong doing!)
That lead to the Agreement of Restoration signed into effect by the Queen on December 18, 1893. This is a binding contract upon the office of the U.S. President in its Executive capacity to fulfill, it also serves to preclude any transfers whatsoever concerning the Hawaiian Kingdom until restoration is complete! Neither the Akaka Bill or OHA can cover this up!
So the Hawaiian Kingdom independence is still pono, from November 28, 1843 until today!
Even on January 18, 1893, pono!
Check this out from Dr. Sai’s site, but I saw it on other sites too:
In the U.S. House of Representatives, Feb. 7, 1894
Resolved First. That it is the sense of this House that the action of the United States minister in employing United States naval forces and illegally aiding in overthrowing the constitutional Government of the Hawaiian Islands in January, 1893, and in setting up in its place a Provisional Government not republican in form and in opposition to the will of a majority of the people, was contrary to the traditions of our Republic and the spirit of our Constitution, and should be and is condemned.
Second. That we heartily approve the principle announced by the President of the United States that interference with the domestic affairs of an independent nation is contrary to the spirit of American institutions. And it is further the sense of this House that the annexation of the Hawaiian Islands to our country, or the assumption of a protectorate over them by our Government, is uncalled for and inexpedient; that the people of that country should have had absolute freedom and independence in pursuing their own line of policy, and that foreign intervention in the political affairs of the islands will not be regarded with indifference by the Government of the United States.
Notice the date, February 7, 1894, Hawaiian Kingdom independence still pono! Even this document sounds pono. Notice under the first part that they recognize Hawaii as being a Constitutional Government! Notice shortly after that “…not republican in form…” now we know why the Provisional Government had to change their name to the Republic of Hawaii.
From Wikipedia Republic of Hawaii:
Following the Morgan Report, and the Turpie Resolution on May 31, 1894 in which Congress prohibited any further intervention by the president and other government officials against the Provisional Government of Hawaiʻi,[dubious – discuss] Cleveland officially recognized the Provisional Government as “neither de jure nor de facto”.
From Wikipedia Morgan report:
The Morgan Report’s submission in 1894 roughly coincided with the Turpie Resolution, which terminated Cleveland’s efforts to restore the Queen. Cleveland (under intense pressure due to domestic unrest in the U.S. and arguably through coercion) accepted the conclusions of the Morgan Report, continued to engage in diplomatic relations with the Provisional Government, recognized the Republic of Hawaii upon its declaration on July 4, 1894, and even negotiated treaties originally ratified under the Kingdom government with the Republic.
On that day, July 4, 1894 did Congress of the U.S. have the authority to engage in international matters beyond its borders, especially when U.S. investigative reports by James Blount concluded U.S. diplomatic and military representatives had abused their authority and were responsible for the change in [the Hawaiian Kingdom] government?
A resounding NO! U.S. Public Law 103-150 account for these events.
You can also see that Turpie Resolution terminated President Cleveland’s efforts to restore the Queen and he eventually gave in and recognized the Republic of Hawaii on July 4, 1894. By recognizing the Republic of Hawaii the U.S. automatically de-recognize the legitimate Hawaiian Kingdom, but it does not take away our sovereign independent status since November 28, 1843 to date. The U.S. has told other nations to recognize their authority over the Hawaiian Islands, but that does not take away from the fact that the Hawaiian Kingdom never entered into to a bi-lateral (two party) treaty of cession with the U.S. nor can they show a treaty of conquest against Hawaii by the U.S. as history tells us that only a U.S. internal policy, Newlands Resolution that came nearly four and a half years after the December 18, 1893 Agreement of Restoration is what they have to stand on! I guess author Sara Vowell is accurate when she referred to the U.S. annexation of Hawaii in 1898 like what New Jersey would proclaim a day like a Bon Jovi day.
So, getting back to the criteria you listed:
1. Geographical Land-base = The Hawaiian Islands
2. Distinct Population = Subjects of the Hawaiian Kingdom “Nationals”
3. Functioning Government = Constitutional Monarchy
4. Ability to exercise Sovereignty itself = Governing relations between nations
The U.S. and State of Hawaii must answer this question because the Hawaiian Kingdom already qualified for this back on November 28, 1843. Most importantly how did they become a functioning government? No treaty = No standing!
Hope this helps!
Don’t take my word on this, use this as a guide to cross check or qualify the information you receive!
Aloha!
A hui hou!!
hey, just want to say I appreciate you guys having a spirited discussion of these issues here. We all benefit from a constructive exchange of perspectives!
Aloha win 808 i hope i dont sound or come off like a school teacher grading some ones work but i would like to respond to certain points that were laid out.
*From the bottom i will start.
So, getting back to the criteria you listed:
1. Geographical Land-base = The Hawaiian Islands
2. Distinct Population = Subjects of the Hawaiian Kingdom “Nationals”
3. Functioning Government = Constitutional Monarchy
4. Ability to exercise Sovereignty itself = Governing relations between nations
The U.S. and State of Hawaii must answer this question because the Hawaiian Kingdom already qualified for this back on November 28, 1843. Most importantly how did they become a functioning government? No treaty = No standing!
Yes the Kingdom did qualified and got recognized but After the coup d’état on January 17, 1893, it was not because #3 was not working thus making #4 also not working. The Republic in absence still of the Hawaiian Kingdom sought recognition from the other Nations of the world namely the ones that the Kingdom had acquired and got it by way of de facto recognition not de jure for that was still reserved to the Hawaiian kingdom. So the authority that the U.S has today is one by means of a de facto nature and add to that No treaty from the republic and it even get better for that touts their claim via transference. Now how did they fulfill #3 from the start the republics own constitution spells that out in article 14 and 15. Article 15 says “the territory of the republic of hawaii shall be that heretofore constituting the kingdom of the hawaiian islands, and the territory ruled over by the PoG of Hawaii, or which may be added to the republic. This in law is called usurping authority. Why de facto governments have serious powers because they can do this and did so much it continued onward to the territory and state!
*By recognizing the Republic of Hawaii the U.S. automatically de-recognize the legitimate Hawaiian Kingdom, but it does not take away our sovereign independent status since November 28, 1843 to date.
I dont believe this is true because the Hawaiian Kingdom even at the time of recognition of the republic was not qualified because #3 was not in place. The queen after blounts report should have seised the moment to reclaim the throne and demonstrated #4 ability. The other Nations would also have seen this and there recognition too would have been reactivated.
*The Morgan report?
This report is irrelevant simply and i kill conklin all the time with this is that the U.S constitution outlines who has authority in these types of matters, the executive branch. Why blount’s report is cited and referred to even today at Akaka bill hearings!!!
*Dr sai notes Cleveland officially recognized the Provisional Government as “neither de jure nor de facto”.
Whats this supposed to mean? Recognition to Nations are either De jure or de facto! Cleveland notes that the PoG are neither, so he gave it nothing no standing at all. Why the PoG transformed itself into the republic got recognition and got Cleveland off there backs.. Im getting my source from the Law of Nations in case you were wondering!
*The Queen on January 17, 1893 temporarily yielded her authority?
Her protest letter says That I YIELD TO THE SUPERIOR FORCE of the United States of America whose Minister Plenipotentiary, His Excellency John L. Stevens, has caused United States troops to be landed at Honolulu and declared that he would support the Provisional Government. NOW TO AVOID COLLISION OF ARMED FORCES, AND PERHAPS THE LOSS OF LIFE, I do this UNDER PROTEST AND IMPELLED BY SAID FORCE YIELD MY AUTHORITY until such time as the Government of the United States shall, upon facts being presented to it, undo the action of its representatives and reinstate me in the authority which I claim as the Constitutional Sovereign of the Hawaiian Islands.
Note this is the same tactic that Kamehameha III used when the british overthrew him. The crown found out the facts and restored recognition to the king. What the U.S did is removed the conditions of the occupation and since no recognition was given to the PoG which some of the 13 guys were Hawaiian Nationals they just left it blank. Why i stated early the queen should have ascended back on to the throne.
*The Hawaiian Kingdom = Real.
The Hawaiian Kingdom = De jure!
Sorry for the insistence on legal words but thats how any court will perceive arguments or opinions.
Mahalo!!!!!! 🙂
Hmmm…a respectful round of intellect, information, history… quite stimulating and educational! “Eliminate all error and incorrect information what is left then is TRUTH” Thank you Win808 and Kealii8!
Aloha Kealii8,
You said – *Dr sai notes Cleveland officially recognized the Provisional Government as “neither de jure nor de facto”.
That notation came from Wkipidia Republic of Hawaii, not Dr. Sai!
See again,
From Wikipedia Republic of Hawaii:
Following the Morgan Report, and the Turpie Resolution on May 31, 1894 in which Congress prohibited any further intervention by the president and other government officials against the Provisional Government of Hawai’i, [dubious – discuss] Cleveland officially recognized the Provisional Government as “neither de jure nor de facto”.
See the definition of de facto in contrast to de jure; source Wikipedia:
De facto is a Latin expression that means “by [the] fact.” In law, it often means “in practice but not necessarily ordained by law” or “in practice or actuality, but not officially established.” It is commonly used in contrast to de jure (which means “concerning the law”) when referring to matters of law, governance, or technique (such as standards) that are found in the common experience as created or developed without or contrary to a regulation. When discussing a legal situation, de jure designates what the law says, while de facto designates action of what happens in practice. It is analogous and similar to the expressions “for all intents and purposes” or “in fact.”
You can clearly see the entity that initiated the HEWA (wrong/bad) on May 31, 1894, although they did not mention the time of day, we can safely say it happened within twenty four hours of that particular day. It was the U.S. Congress that “…prohibited any further intervention by the president and other government officials against the Provisional Government of Hawai’i.
The U.S. Congress took the side of the treasonous Provisional Government rendering President Cleveland a “lame duck” this is the exact point where the non-justiciable issue, political doctrine question comes from!
The very reason why the Federal and State of Hawaii Courts today refuse to resolve issues having ties to the Hawaiian Kingdom! Because the U.S. Congress rendered President Cleveland a lame Duck (without power) Cleveland officially recognized the Provisional Government as “neither de jure nor de facto”.
That is the worse recognition to have! The Provisional Government was neither lawful nor factual! So what is the Provisional Government? Nothing! That according to President Cleveland.
So why did President Cleveland recognize the Republic of Hawaii who were made up of the same group of insurgents from the Provisional Government on July 4, 1894? You got it, pressure! Grover Cleveland was a Statesman more than a Politician, an honorable man among his peers!
Representative William McKinley introduced the Tariffs Act aka McKinley Tariff which became a U.S. law on October 1, 1890, in short it was designed to raise the average duty on imports to almost fifty percent, an act designed to protect domestic industries from foreign competition. You can see why the sugar plantation owners desired U.S. recognition and favored annexation of Hawaii to the U.S. fifty percent of their profits would have vanished on duty taxes to the U.S. William McKinley was a pro expansionist and no doubt had an eye on Hawaii for U.S. military strategic purposes. When he became the 25th U.S. President after Grover Cleveland the puzzle came together for the taking of Hawaii. So who is the puppet master? William Mckinley! Even his statute at Honolulu High School is with HEWA, the scroll displays a Treaty of Annexation. What Treaty of Annexation?
It’s worth noting here that President Cleveland had fought against the McKinley Tariff, so you can see the politics going on in D.C. at that time.
Did the U.S. Congress have the authority to interfere with the President Cleveland’s international affairs concerning the Hawaiian Islands on May 31, 1894? NO!
Because the Provisional Government is nothing, then the Republic of Hawaii, Territory of Hawaii and State of Hawaii is also nothing! Further the January 17, 1893 and December 18, 1893 Executive Agreements, binding contracts pre-date the U.S. Morgan Report and Turpie Resolution and preclude the U.S. from recognizing the Republic of Hawaii on July 4, 1894!
Hawaiian Kingdom = De Jure or Lawful = Real!
Mahalo
Aloha Win808
My apologies for the wrong quote it was from wikipedia a source that is much unreliable with regards to this subject matter!
See the definition as defined by legal dictionaries!
DE JURE. Rightfully; lawfully; by legal title. Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, Third Revision (8th Edition)(1914), Volume I, page 768.
De Jure. Of right; legitimate, lawful; by right and just title. In this sense contrary of de facto. Black’s Law Dictionary 4th Edition (1951) page 481.
DE FACTO. Actually; in fact; in deed. A term used to denote a thing actually done. A government de facto signifies one completely, through only temporarily, established in the place of the lawful government.Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, Third Revision (8th Edition)(1914), Volume 1, page 761.
De facto. In fact; actually; indeed; in reality. Black’s Law Dictionary 4th Edition (1951) page 504.
De facto government. One that maintains itself by a display of force against the will of the rightful legal government and is successful, at least temporarily, in overturning the institutions of the rightful legal government by setting up its own in lieu thereof. Black’s Law Dictionary 4th Edition (1951) page 504.
*The U.S. Congress took the side of the treasonous Provisional Government rendering President Cleveland a “lame duck” this is the exact point where the non-justiciable issue, political doctrine question comes from!
Not all of congress supported the PoG but the constitution clearly lays out the power each branch of government has so how could they suspend or put on hold the presidents authority? Besides they were stalling because Cleveland’s term was coming to an end then they would have a president who would sign off on any agreement. Congress has its own powers and check and balances are in place to prevent what being suggested.
*That is the worse recognition to have! The Provisional Government was neither lawful nor factual! So what is the Provisional Government? Nothing! That according to President Cleveland.
President Grover Cleveland Message to the Senate and House of Representatives – December 18, 1893, he states When our Minister recognized the provisional government the only basis upon which it rested was the fact that the Committee of Safety had in the manner above stated declared it to exist. It was neither a government de facto nor de jure. That it was not in such possession of the Government property and agencies as entitled it to recognition is conclusively proved by a note found in the files of the Legation at Honolulu, addressed by the declared head of the provisional government to Minister Stevens, dated January 17, 1893, in which he acknowledges with expressions of appreciation the Minister’s recognition of the provisional government, and states that it is not yet in the possession of the station house (the place where a large number of the Queen’s troops were quartered), though the same had been demanded of the Queen’s officers in charge. Nevertheless, this wrongful recognition by our Minister placed the Government of the Queen in a position of most perilous perplexity.
President Cleveland never recognized the PoG minister Steven’s did!
And thus Cleveland notes this;“By an act of war, committed with the participation of a diplomatic representative of the United States and without authority of Congress, the Government of a feeble but friendly and confiding people has been overthrown. A substantial wrong has thus been done which a due regard for our national character as well as the rights of the injured people requires we should endeavor to repair.”
“The provisional government has not assumed a republican or other constitutional form, but has remained a mere executive council or oligarchy, set up without the assent of the people. It has not sought to find a permanent basis of popular support and has given no evidence of an intention to do so. Indeed, the representatives of that government assert that the people of Hawaii are unfit for popular government and frankly avow that they can be best ruled by arbitrary or despotic power.
”On that ground it can not allow itself to refuse to redress an injury inflicted through an abuse of power by officers clothed with its authority and wearing its uniform; and on the same ground, if a feeble but friendly state is in danger of being robbed of its independence and its sovereignty by a misuse of the name and power of the United States, the United States can not fail to vindicate its honor and its sense of justice by an earnest effort to make all possible reparation.”
*So why did President Cleveland recognize the Republic of Hawaii who were made up of the same group of insurgents from the Provisional Government on July 4, 1894? You got it, pressure!
What kind of pressure are you referring to? My point was the PoG wasnt getting any help by the U.S and there actions were obviously apparent and treasonous so the went ahead and followed recognition doctrine and got de facto recognition from everybody. First thing they did was to get the U.S off there back about what had transpired and now being recognized as a sovereign Nation they could do so. Then agreements were made to have the marines return and set up military posts. Of course annexation was the real goal.
Lastly the PoG was nothing but the Republic was just like Territory and now the state. The question you have to ask your self is what power does a de facto government have?
Reinstate the Lawful Hawaiian Government and put the claim fourth that the Hawaiian Kingdom is back and ready to to do business. WHy the U.S is pushing Akaka bill so hard! 🙁
Aloha Kealii8,
You posted:
President Grover Cleveland Message to the Senate and House of Representatives – December 18, 1893, he states When our Minister recognized the provisional government the only basis upon which it rested was the fact that the Committee of Safety had in the manner above stated declared it to exist. It was neither a government de facto nor de jure.
President Cleveland addressing the actions of Minister Steven’s knew that the Provisional Government was brought to life by the Committee of Safety, an entity that was without Hawaiian Kingdom government authority. If the President stated that the Provisional Government was neither de facto nor de jure wouldn’t you agree that any descending entity that followed it also carry the same classification?
President Cleveland at this particular second is trying to rectify the international incident by stating the facts. He does not recognize the Republic of Hawaii yet nor does he want to in this statement!
The genealogy of the treasonous government:
1. Provisional Government aka Insurgents
2. Republic of Hawaii
3. Territory of Hawaii
4. State of Hawaii
The Provisional Government declaring itself to be the Republic of Hawaii on July 4, 1894 does not validate its standing as an authorized government entity of the Hawaiian Kingdom. The Republic of Hawaii carries the same classification as the Provisional Government it is neither a government de facto nor de jure.
President Cleveland condemned the error made by U.S. Minister Stevens!
It is evident on paper that President Cleveland wanted to restore the Queen’s authority. But in short, the Morgan report contradicted the Blount report and the Turpie Resolution terminated President Cleveland’s efforts to restore the Queen.
President Cleveland could not restore the Queen because of the U.S. Congressional May 31, 1894 Turpie Resolution, by not restoring the Hawaiian Queen the Hawaiian Islands becomes an open target, but that is a fallacy, Keep in mind the two Executive Agreements (international compacts) entered into between the Queen and the President in 1893, that should’ve prevented the events that transpired in 1894 in the U.S. Congress concerning the Hawaiian Kingdom, but as you know the Hawaiian Islands is now occupied by the U.S. and its State of Hawaii.
President Cleveland’s pressure concerning the Hawaiian Islands was not only because of foreign power intervention, but because of the possibility of abuse by the insurgents against the Queen and her
government. Given the options the President had at the time and perhaps knowing that he already declared the Provisional Government neither de facto nor de jure, he recognized the Republic of Hawaii on July 4, 1894.
1. Did the U.S. Congress have the right on May 31, 1894 to prevent President Grover Cleveland from restoring the Queen’s authority? No.
2. Did the President have the right to recognize the Republic of Hawaii on July 4, 1894 based upon his finding that its predecessor was neither a government de facto nor de jure? No.
3. Was the President dealing with the de jure government on July 4, 1894? No.
4. Did the Hawaiian Kingdom loose its status as a sovereign nation on July 4, 1894? No.
Nearly 38,000 signatures in support of anti-annexation in 1897 out of a population around 40,000 (98%) is pretty much a majority, yet the hewa already inflicted on July 4, 1894. The President is blocked from restoration, but the Judicial system can lawfully adjudicate the two Executive Agreements under the U.S. Supremacy clause as to those two international compacts (treaties). For the U.S. Judicial system to implement the Political Question Doctrine would be to fuse the U.S. legislative and judicial branch of government together, the executive branch being silent, absent of the Separation of Powers doctrine.
While I didn’t know any better the fourth of July meant fireworks and food, a cool summer holiday! Now that I know the actual hewa on that day back in 1894 against the Hawaiian Kingdom, I personally choose to quietly remember those who stood strong for the Hawaiian Kingdom. I choose not to celebrate the independence of the United States who blatantly trampled over the independence of my nation!
Personally, the Apology Bill, although an internal U.S. policy triggers the wrongful act committed by the U.S. alongside the insurgents. This should suffice to validate rescission by international countries of U.S. authority over the independent nation of the Hawaiian Kingdom.
Just so we are all on the same wave length, one can no more tell the ethnicity of a Hawaiian than that of an American. Hawaiian reflects a nationality including peoples of different races belonging to a nation. The U.S. and State of Hawaii wants to box this in a race! (This is for the people asking me question off this blogsite) Maybe we should have a web or skype conference on this subject at least we can Kukakuka!
It appears that we are on the same side, both wanting the restoration of the Hawaiian Kingdom albeit with
different set of healthy perspectives! It’s good to see how others view a particular situation especially one as sensitive as this one.
Mahalo
Aloha Win808
You posted:
President Cleveland addressing the actions of Minister Steven’s knew that the Provisional Government was brought to life by the Committee of Safety, an entity that was without Hawaiian Kingdom government authority. If the President stated that the Provisional Government was neither de facto nor de jure wouldn’t you agree that any descending entity that followed it also carry the same classification?
No! Simply because they followed recognition doctrine procedures and got recognition “de facto” not only from the U.S but from the other Nations of the world! I dont think you fully comprehend how this task is done and the significance of having been recognized. Look at Israeli today the U.S and a few other Nations recognized it and thus why it has standing as a real Nation is because it meets the four requirements we talk about earlier. Thank god our situation or legal case is far more simpler and way less hostile then there’s.
You posted:
The Provisional Government declaring itself to be the Republic of Hawaii on July 4, 1894 does not validate its standing as an authorized government entity of the Hawaiian Kingdom.
It or they wasn’t trying to be anything for the Hawaiian Kingdom it or they were trying to be considered a new bona-fide Nation. There lies conklin and his revisionists who say this action was in part because a revolution took place in Hawaii and the natives were unfit to rule, mocking the Hawaiian Kingdom government when nothing could be further from the truth. Why the PoG failed in its attempt to secure recognition, because they 1. Didn’t follow recognition doctrine procedures lawfully 2. The Act of war committed by U.S military ordered by minister Steven’s with out the consent of the president.
You posted:
Keep in mind the two Executive Agreements (international compacts) entered into between the Queen and the President in 1893, that should’ve prevented the events that transpired in 1894 in the U.S. Congress concerning the Hawaiian Kingdom, but as you know the Hawaiian Islands is now occupied by the U.S. and its State of Hawaii.
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. 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.
Mahalo
Aloha Kealii8,
Was the Provisional Government De Jure?
Was the Republic of Hawaii De Jure?
Was the Territory of Hawaii De Jure?
Is the State of Hawaii De Jure?
Did the U.S. in the Apology Bill apologize to the Native Hawaiians because they had
nothing better to do?
What happened to their typewriter that they couldn’t spell Native with the lower case n?
Why was the apology made only to Native Hawaiians and not Hawaiian Nationals?
Was it right for the Provisional Government to do what they did to the Hawaiian Kingdom?
Are International Compacts a form of treaties between countries?
Does the U.S. Congress have authority beyond its borders?
Did the Queen invite the Marines that landed on January 16, 1893 to a luau?
Did the USS Boston loose its way and mistakenly landed in Hawaii thinking it was in
the Philippines defending against the Spanish?
It’s as simple as a light switch, light on, light off!
The Republic of Hawaii can’t be recognized as a new nation, (in the Hawaiian Islands anyway)
the U.S. is still obligated to fulfill those two Executive Contracts to the Hawaiian Kingdom.
If any of the above named entities were at anytime de jure, why would the U.S. Apologize in
U.S. Public Law 103-150?
Whether the Republic of Hawaii qualified for recognition by any country including the U.S. is
dependent on whether they had de jure authority and standing first to be qualified at all.
Had the Queen wiped out all the insurgents including the landed U.S. military would a be cause
for the U.S. to take action against Hawaii.
If you indeed want to see the Hawaiian Kingdom returned you should not push it away!
You said:
Executive agreements are not treaties.
Back that up with case law!
In U.S. v. Belmont (1937), the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed that executive agreements
entered into between the President and a sovereign nation does not require ratification
from the U.S. Senate to have the force and effect of a treaty; and executive agreements
bind successor Presidents for their faithful execution.
U.S. v. Pink (1942) and American Insurance Association v. Garamendi (2003). In Garamendi,
the Court stated, “Specifically, the President has authority to make ‘executive agreements’
with other countries, requiring no ratification by the Senate or approval by Congress.” And
“…executive agreements are treaties, and as such are the Supreme Law of the Land under
the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
That means the office of the U.S. President can be involved! However based upon the above non de jure
status of the above named entities he may not be qualified under U.S. Constitutional law, and
considering the birth age of Obama’s mom too!
Hope this was a benefit to all who read it! Sorry about the small kine mistakes! Main thing the
point got across!
Nuff said!
Aloha Win808;
You posted:
Was the Provisional Government De Jure? No
Was the Republic of Hawaii De Jure? No
Was the Territory of Hawaii De Jure? NO
Is the State of Hawaii De Jure? No
Did the U.S. in the Apology Bill apologize to the Native Hawaiians because they had nothing better to do? No its an answer to the Queens protest letter!
What happened to their typewriter that they couldn’t spell Native with the lower case n? Must be broken i guess?
Why was the apology made only to Native Hawaiians and not Hawaiian Nationals? Yes because the Kingdom is not recognized or active so the decedents get the response.
Was it right for the Provisional Government to do what they did to the Hawaiian Kingdom? No why its called an act of war and the people involved traitors.
Are International Compacts a form of treaties between countries? No, Treaties must be ratified by the U.S. Senate under the U.S. Constitution.
Does the U.S. Congress have authority beyond its borders? No
Did the Queen invite the Marines that landed on January 16, 1893 to a luau? NO
Did the USS Boston loose its way and mistakenly landed in Hawaii thinking it was in the Philippines defending against the Spanish? NO
*The Republic of Hawaii can’t be recognized as a new nation, (in the Hawaiian Islands anyway) the U.S. is still obligated to fulfill those two Executive Contracts to the Hawaiian Kingdom.
SO you say but they have the recognition to prove it from the U.S and the other countries.
*If any of the above named entities were at anytime de jure, why would the U.S. Apologize in U.S. Public Law 103-150? To answer the queens protest letter and none of those entities were de jure.
*Whether the Republic of Hawaii qualified for recognition by any country including the U.S. is dependent on whether they had de jure authority and standing first to be qualified at all.
No like i stated before de jure status is non rescindable was as de facto is. Why countries around the world are always changing via governments or geographic boundaries. Revolutions are usually at the heart of matters like this, and why Nations that start of de jure end up being de facto because the people demanded change. Being de jure and staying de jure is what i think youre referring too.
*Had the Queen wiped out all the insurgents including the landed U.S. military would a be cause for the U.S. to take action against Hawaii. Yes thats why she did what Kamehameha III did waited for the U.S to respond honorable once all that facts were presented.
*If you indeed want to see the Hawaiian Kingdom returned you should not push it away! Im certainly not pushing it away my points that i have laid out call for a process to reinstate the De jure Hawaiian Kingdom Government so that a claim can be made by way of recognition doctrine. We the kanaka have to take the lead in doing this for it was the process left to us by the queen not waiting to see if another country going put everything back the way it was especially 100 years after the fact.
You said:
Executive agreements are not treaties.
Back that up with case law!
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. (I will not go into the Atlantic Charter (1940) at this time.)
That same era of radical usurpation and prevarication was also written about by Renquist in his writing: “The Supreme Court.” Renquist’s writing was semi-diplomatic but there is no doubt that the Supreme Court was perverted into a radical extension of the Executive Department by that same progressivist regime. U.S. Supreme Court Rule 45(1) is but one example.
1. All process of this Court issues in the name of the President of the United States.
Hope this was a benefit to all who read it!
Mahalo Nui Loa
Aloha Kealii8,
You said:
Executive agreements are not treaties.
I provided a 2003 case cite:
In re, American Insurance Association v. Garamendi (2003). In Garamendi,
the Court stated, “Specifically, the President has authority to make
‘executive agreements’ with other countries, requiring no ratification by
the Senate or approval by Congress.” And “…executive agreements are
treaties, and as such are the Supreme Law of the Land under the Supremacy
Clause of the U.S. Constitution.”
That was a Supreme Court’s holding!
What case cite[s] would be contrary to that?
Mahalo
Aloha Win808;
Whoever gave you this case is mis-citing it
“Generally, then, valid executive agreements are fit to pre-empt state law, just as treaties are,9 and if the agreements here had expressly preempted laws like HVIRA, the issue would be straightforward. See Belmont, supra, at 327, 331; Pink, supra, at 223, 230–231. But petitioners and the United States as amicus curiae both have to acknowledge that the agreements include no preemption clause, and so leave their claim of preemption to rest on asserted interference with the foreign policy those agreements embody.”
Where is the cite quoted?
The radical movement of the Supreme Court started with the Belmont case regarding an Executive Agreement between communist Russia’s Premier Stalin and communist Roosevelt regarding a trade agreement. That ruling was followed by U.S. v. Pink in 1942. If you want to read about that particular radical era and the packing of the Supreme Court by Roosevelt read “The Supreme Court” by Renquist. During that radical era the country ended up with such things as the Atlantic Charter, Yalta Agreement, Bretton Woods Agreement, etc,. etc.
Under normal constitutional conditions, there has to be a statute whereby Congress authorized the Executive department to employ such a power and to expend public funds. Otherwise the Constitution is abandoned to rule by executive edict that is not Republican in form. In effect, it becomes a Roman law country like much of Europe and not a common law country.
A treaty takes actual ratification by the Senate “under” the U.S. Constitution. Of course a treaty, such as the Uruguay Round Trade Agreement, had approximately 150 environmental treaties and agreements annexed to it like a rider on a Congressional Bill. When the U.S. legislature ratified the Uruguay Round Trade Agreement, implied consent of accession was acquired to the annexed treaties.
In short, if an executive edict or accord is the law of the land, then the limitations imposed by the ordained Constitution are abandoned and replaced by anything that the Executive Department desires. The land can then be ruled by foreign governments or aristocratic organizations who do not take an oath of office and have no allegiance to the Nation and people who vested the power in the public offices. The legislature can be sent home as a senseless and costly charade.
One might also review that matter using the standards for constitutional interpretation written by Joseph Story. A treaty must be made “under” authority of the U.S. Constitution, not in excess of the fundamental law.
Mahalo
Aloha,
In a nut shell, the illegal overthrow of 1893 was a settled event, anything beyond that is no good!
On January 16, 1893 the U.S. by its military representative violated international law! The
U.S. conducted investigations into the events leading up to the Queen giving up her executive authority on January 17, 1893. (The start) The Blount Report concluded, in short,
that the U.S. was wrong. The Queen entered into an Agreement of Restoration with the U.S. on December 18, 1893, ending the illegal overthrow. (The end) Anything past that is no good, but if we want to play with the U.S. FED and State of Hawaii we can because we can never be accused of treason as revolutionist, we are restorationist!
The U.S. needs to make sure that those two Executive Assignments are not treaties so they can conclude that the U.S. did nothing wrong when they dealt with the Provisional Government and the Republic of Hawaii and the Hawaiian Islands belongs to the U.S.
The U.S. always knew that they didn’t have authority over the Hawaiian Islands, they have no treaty to show! Haa!
They want to fool the world now by slipping in the Akaka Bill, now that is a treasonous act against the Hawaiian Kingdom in my opinion!
Just by me telling you this much and if you indeed want the Hawaiian Kingdom government to be restored, you should already have an idea what to ask and who to ask to stop the insurrection against Hawaiian nationals!
If you can find a case that says the Executive Agreements are not treaties, make a deal with the U.S. they will compensate you big time as they would have the information to once and for all put an end to the Hawaiian Kingdom! Some people will call that selling out, but who knows your financial position, as they say you have to look out for number one!
BTW: I don’t need to know the details on the case cite, where is the case law in opposition! The faith of the Hawaiian Kingdom rest in your research, if you find a case
that supports the position that nothing happened in 1893, in essence the two executive agreements would mean nothing by your search result, you will have helped to put an end to the restoration of the Hawaiian Kingdom. If its there, its there! You would be helping all of us, as we would know once and for all that there is no way back home!
Perhaps our kupuna would be disappointed, but we were slaves for 118 years, what difference
would it make?
Mahalo
Oh well then i think were pretty much done here.
For scott crawford who runs this site what’s the status on mele carols investigation on these agreements?
ANd do you or camp sai provide a signed copy of these agreements?
Mahalo and give my aloha to aunty tweetie…..
Aloha Kealii8,
If the two executive agreements were not valid, I promise you there wouldn’t be an Apology Bill by the U.S., but that apology wasn’t made to native Hawaiians, it was made to Native Hawaiians. BTW: The Hawaiian Kingdom is a nation state and not a State.
I can see how you could conclude that I come from camp sai as the facts Dr. Sai works with are the same that I work with, does he determine what information I sould be bound to? No!
I think you would agree that there is no treaty of cession between the Hawaiian Kingdom and the U.S., I think you would also agree that annexation of the Hawaiian Islands in 1898 by a U.S. resolution has no affect over the sovereign Hawaiian Kingdom, yet I wouldn’t conclude you came from camp sai, our history is what it is!
If everyone was to rely on the factual events of history all the groups would go away! But groups help to kick start ones thinking process on the historical events that took place in Hawaii. For the new ones, just because you heard someone say there is no treaty of cession don’t believe it, check it out and then conclude your finding. Now you can defend your position!
I purchased many books on Hawaiian history only to find out later that some authors had no idea what actually happened in Hawaii! What if I chose to stop my qualification process at the end of that book, I would be inaccurate! Now if someone notice that I’m off they would counter with supporting evidence and upon my qualification of the new information I would have the option to accept or deny.
I apologise if I was too direct asking you for a case law. My intent was not to attack your
intellect but rather to get to the core of the argument that the U.S. is facing right now!
I appreciate your reply, it makes me stronger as I hope it has done for you too!
It is my hope that all who have read this blog learned something, then Kealii8 and myself have done an honorable thing for the Hawaiian Kingdom!
I leave this statement for one final consideration:
“…the Turpie Resolution on May 31, 1894 in which Congress prohibited any further intervention by the president and other government officials against the Provisional Government of Hawai’i,…”
Don’t just read it, use your mind’s eye! What do you see? Ha!! Now qualify it!
Thank you, I apprecited the chat!
Aloha
Kealii8 and Win808, Mahalo plenty for your hearty and respectful exchange of viewpoints and information. I’m sure you have enlightened many who have dropped in (myself especially) to help us learn from our past and make clear a path to our future. Onipa’a!
Mahalo Win808 and Kealii8 for the great dialogue.
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.
It appears the misapplication of Lin vs. United States and other case law is what they are using to create this political question to dismiss the case.
The fundamental issue on appeal will center on whether or not a U.S. President can withdraw recognition of Hawaiian state sovereignty after a previous U.S. President afforded explicit recognition of Hawaiian state sovereignty on July 6, 1844, thereby creating, as the U.S. District determined, a political question until Hawaiian state sovereignty is re-recognized by a subsquent U.S. President.
It will be interesting to see what the Defendants will cite or what evidence they will use to answer the above mentioned fundamental issue.
Hopefully the appeals court will correct Defendants misapplication of case law and move this forward.
Aloha
Aloha,
Mahalo Kulamauka and Kekoa!
Kekoa you are indeed accurate!
I think the outcome of H.C.R. 107 will address the core of the problem.
It’s so hard to believe that with today’s technology this subject wouldn’t be the center of attention.
I’m thinking there must be other ways around that challange!
Mahalo!
Aloha everyone can anyone please provide a site or address were the agreements can be viewed and i do mean the signed agreements. No can find anywhere!
I too am enjoying this dialogue. I think this might help clear some things up for kealii8, when he/she asked “can anyone please provide a site or address were the agreements can be viewed and i do mean the signed agreements.” The agreements are in the complaint as well as hotlines at the lawsuit website, so I don’t understand why kealii8 can’t find it. In any event here are the links to the PDF files from the Sai v. Clinton website for the Lili`uokalani assignment and the Agreement of restoration:
http://hawaiiankingdom.org/pdf/EA_1(HI%20Claim).pdf
http://hawaiiankingdom.org/pdf/EA_2(HI%20Claim).pdf
I also think this may clear some things up also regarding the definition of a treaty, which is from “American Jurisprudence, 2nd Ed.” volume 74, p. 828-829. I do know that the State of Hawai`i courts and pleadings filed with the court consistently cite the American Jurisprudence on other matters, so I thought I would go to UH Law Library and look up treaties. Here’s a relevant section regarding treaties.
§2. Definitions and distinctions. All compacts between nations are described either as “conventions” or as “treaties,” there being no very substantial distinction in the force ascribed to these terms. Ordinarily, a “treaty” is understood to mean an instrument written and executed with the formalities customary among nations, although it is not to be understood that any particular form is indisputable. The mutual consent of the contracting parties may be given expressly or tacitly, and either verbally or in writing. It may be given expressly by an instrument signed by the plenipotentiaries of both parties, or by a declaration and counterdeclaration, or in the form of letters or notes exchanged between them. But modern usage requires that verbal agreements be, as soon as possible, reduced in writing in order to avoid disputes; and all mere verbal communications preceding the final signature of a written convention are considered as merged in the instrument itself. The consent of the parties may be given tacitly, in the case of an agreement made under imperfect authority, by acting under it as if duly concluded.
Clearly, the Lili`uokalani assignment and the Agreement of restoration are treaties. And that Win808, who already pointed out U.S. v. Belmont, U.S. v. Pink and American Insurance Association v. Garamendi, sole -executive agreements do not need ratification by the Senate or approval from Congress. I would also think that if there were no executive agreements that constitute treaties the U.S. Attorney for Washington, D.C., as well as the Judge in the case would have pointed that out.
Mahalo Ikuwa for the post.
The Court dismissed on a Rule 12(b)(1) motion, on subject matter jurisdictional grounds, which assumes facts alleged in the complaint to be true.
The Court stated this was not a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for Plaintiff failing to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, where the basis of the lawsuit, which is the executive agreement, do not exist.
If the executive agreements did not exist this case would have been dismissed on Rule 12(b)(6) or probably Plaintiff would have never filed the complaint.
Aloha Ikuwa
those files are keanus take on the agreement i had ask for the actual agreement itself. I called the state archives and theres one copy they have thats signed, as far as a second agreement they said they dont have anything or no knowledge of such.
Aloha kealii8,
Great job in finding that signed agreement. Do you know if it is the Lili’uokalani assignment or the Restoration agreement?
Not sure im going to have to go down there and see for myself which one it is. After that i will be able to see what the condition is and the legality.
Since the fourth of July is coming upon us soon, I was thinking:
What time did the treasonous Provisional Government declare itself the Republic of Hawaii on
July 4, 1894?
And, what time did U.S. President Grover Cleveland recognize the Republic of Hawaii on that
same 4th of July day back in 1894.
What would happen if the President recognized the Republic of Hawaii before the Provisional
Government declared itself the Republic of Hawaii. The time difference between Hawaii and
D.C. and the communication systems back then would be a concern when recognition actually
took place.
It could possibly be that the U.S. had no standing to recognize the Republic of Hawaii,
knocking out U.S. contention that it had recognized the Republic of Hawaii in the first place!
Just because recognition took place on the same day means nothing. The timing matters!
Not that it would matter, as Kekoa pointed out the Court in Sai’s case was dismissed under
FRCP 12(b)(1), but we can examine the Hewa more clearly after the Executive Agreements of 1893.
What exact second on July 4, 1894 did U.S. President get word of the Republic of Hawaii’s existence?
I think at the time the U.S. was already on daylight saving time, maybe 6 hours ahead of Hawaiian Time?
Something to think about!
The fundamental issue on appeal will center on whether or not a U.S. President can withdraw recognition of Hawaiian state sovereignty after a previous U.S. President afforded explicit recognition of Hawaiian state sovereignty on July 6, 1844, thereby creating, as the U.S. District determined, a political question until Hawaiian state sovereignty is re-recognized by a subsquent U.S. President.
If Plaintiff prevails in successfully arguing that a U.S. President cannot withdraw recognition of Hawaiian state sovereignty after a previous U.S. President gave recognition. The political question doctrine disappears and case moves on. There is no dispute over the executive agreements.