Comment from KenConklin
Time: August 23, 2009, 6:34 pm

I’m always surprised when people say there was no Treaty of Annexation. Of course there was. I’ve posted a copy of it below. Some people even say the folks at UH have been looking for it for years and can’t find it. Well, I guess that shows the folks at UH are kinda stooopid.

The Republic offered the Treaty of Annexation below in 1897, and the U.S. accepted it in 1898. A copy of the treaty is provided below.

We are lucky that ex-queen Liliuokalani filed a lawsuit in 1909, which was decided in 1910, in which she claimed that she should get money for the ceding of the crown lands to the U.S. Note that she claimed the crown lands had belonged to her individually; and she never claimed the crown lands had belonged to ethnic Hawaiians communally. So even if she had won, no ethnic Hawaiian except her would have gotten any piece of the crown lands. But anyway, she lost.

The court relied on HAWAIIAN KINGDOM LAW to prove that she had never owned the crown lands individually during eht time when she was Queen. Furthermore, the court in an appendix to its decision included the Treaty of Annexation of 1897/1898 as evidence that the crown lands were indeed given to the U.S. as part of that process.

So here you go. Now you can get a good night’s sleep, along with all those other folks at UH who have been looking for the Treaty of Annexation and were unable to find it.

If you want to see Liliuokalani’s complaint in this lawsuit, as well as the entire decision by the court, plus information about the value of the ceded lands showing that the U.S. paid more than they were worth when it assumed the entire national debt of Hawaii, just go here:
http://tinyurl.com/56czl

Eia no ka palapala.

45 Ct. Claims 418 (1910)

RESOLUTION OF THE SENATE OF HAWAII RATIFYING THE TREATY OF ANNEXATION.

Be it resolved by the Senate of the Republic of Hawaii:

That the Senate hereby ratifies and advises and consents to the ratification by the President of the treaty between the Republic of Hawaii and the United States of America on the subject of the annexation of the Hawaiian Islands to the United States of America, concluded at Washington on the 16th day of June, A. D. 1897, which treaty is word for word as follows:

“The Republic of Hawaii and the United States of America, in view of the natural dependence of the Hawaiian Islands upon the United States, of their geographical proximity thereto, of the preponderant share acquired by the United States and its citizens in the industries and trade of said islands, and of the expressed desire of the Government of the Republic of Hawaii that those islands should be incorporated into the United States as an integral part thereof, and under its sovereignty, have determined to accomplish by treaty an object so important to their mutual and permanent welfare.

“To this end the high contracting parties have conferred full powers and authority upon their respectively appointed plenipotentiaries, to wit:

“The President of the Republic of Hawaii, Francis March Hatch, Lorrin A. Thurston, and William A. Kinney.

[ page 436 ]

“The President of the United States, John Sherman, Secretary of State of the United States.

“ARTICLE I.

“The Republic of Hawaii hereby cedes absolutely and without reserve to the United States of America all rights of sovereignty of whatsoever kind in and over the Hawaiian Islands and their dependencies; and it is agreed that all the territory of and appertaining to the Republic of Hawaii is hereby annexed to the United States of America under the name of the Territory of Hawaii.

“ARTICLE II.

“The Republic of Hawaii also cedes and hereby transfers to the United States the absolute fee and ownership of all public, government, or crown lands, public buildings or edifices, ports, harbors, military equipments, and all other public property of every kind and description belonging to the Government of the Hawaiian Islands, together with every right and appurtenance thereunto appertaining.

“The existing laws of the United States relative to public lands shall not apply to such lands in the Hawaiian Islands; but the Congress of the United States shall enact special laws for their management and disposition. Provided, that all revenue from or proceeds of the same, except as regards such part thereof as may be used or occupied for the civil, military, or naval purposes of the United States, or may be assigned for the use of the local government, shall be used solely for the benefit of the inhabitants of the Hawaiian Islands for educational and other public purposes.

“ARTICLE III.

“Until Congress shall provide for the government of such islands, all civil, judicial, and military powers exercised by the officers of the existing government in said islands shall be vested in such person or persons and shall be exercised in such manner as the President of the United States shall direct; and the President shall have power to remove said officers and fill the vacancies so occasioned.

“The existing treaties of the Hawaiian Islands with foreign nations shall forthwith cease and determine, being replaced by such treaties as may exist, or as may be hereafter concluded, between the United States and such foreign nations. The municipal legislation of the Hawaiian Islands,

[ page 437 ]

not enacted for the fulfillment of the treaty (treaties) so extinguished , and not inconsistent with this treaty, nor contrary to the Constitution of the United States, nor to any existing treaty of the United States, shall remain in force until the Congress of the United States shall otherwise determine.

“Until legislation shall be enacted extending the United States customs laws and regulations to the Hawaiian Islands, the existing customs relations of the Hawaiian Islands with the United States and other countries shall remain unchanged.

ARTICLE IV.

“The public debt of the Republic of Hawaii, lawfully existing at the date of the exchange of the ratifications of this treaty, including the amounts due to depositors in the Hawaiian Postal Savings Bank, is hereby assumed by the Government of the United States; but the liability of the United States in this regard shall in no case exceed $4,000,000. So long, however, as the existing government and the present commercial relations of the Hawaiian Islands are continued as hereinbefore provided, said Government shall continue to pay the interest on said debt.

“ARTICLE V.

“There shall be no further immigration of Chinese into the Hawaiian Islands, except upon such conditions as are now or may hereafter be allowed by the laws of the United States, and no Chinese by reason of anything here contained shall be allowed to enter the United States from Hawaiian Islands.

“ARTICLE VI.

“The President shall appoint five commissioners, at least two of whom shall be residents of the Hawaiian Islands, who shall, as soon as reasonably practicable, recommend to Congress such legislation concerning the Territory of Hawaii as they shall deem necessary or proper.

“ARTICLE VII.

“This treaty shall be ratified by the President of the Republic of Hawaii, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, in accordance with the Constitution of the said Republic, on the one part; and by the President of the United

[ page 438 ]

States, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, on the other, and the ratifications hereof shall be exchanged at Washington as soon as possible.

“In witness whereof the respective plenipotentiaries have signed the above articles, and have hereunto affixed their seals.

“Done in duplicate at the city of Washington this sixteenth day of June, one thousand eight hundred and ninety seven.

“[SEAL] (Sig.) FRANCIS MARCH HATCH.

“[SEAL] (Sig.) LORRIN A. THURSTON.

“[SEAL] (Sig.) WILLIAM A. KINNEY.

“[SEAL] (Sig.) JOHN SHERMAN.”

I hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was unanimously adopted at the special session of the Senate of the Republic of Hawaii on the 9th day of September, A. D. 1897.

WILLIAM C. WILDER, President.

Attest:

J. F. CLAY,

Clerk of the Senate.

Comment from arnie
Time: August 23, 2009, 8:48 pm

A 1910 Resolution of the Senate of Hawaii?
I’m sorry Mr. Conklin, this isn’t one of your stronger attempts of trying to prove that Hawaii was legitimately annexed by the United States under international law, or US constitutional law.

We ask once again, show us the Annexation Treaty.

Not the one some backroom hoodlums concocted, but the only one that can exist, the only one that should matter: the one ratified by the US Senate with the proper 2/3rd vote. Not this one done in 1910 by the Territorial Govt, not the one done in 1898 by a joint resolution, but only one: the one the senate supposedly ratified.

You could give evidence to 50 “annexation” treaties between any govt. agency, but as you well know, only one matters.

Comment from Jere Krischel
Time: August 23, 2009, 10:05 pm

Arnie, you forget, the US constitutionality of a given action (in this case the annexation of Hawaii) does not invalidate the legality of such an action under international law. How a country decides to enact a treaty is an internal affair, but when two countries agree in the full view of the international community to enact a treaty (in this case, the US and the Republic of Hawaii), the agreement itself is both viable and internationally legal.

In this case, if the US were to unilaterally assert that the treaty was illegal, strip citizenship from everyone in the islands, and demand that the Hawaiian islands revert to the Republic of Hawaii, they would certainly get a poor reception from the international community, and their action would be seen as clearly illegal under international law. Regardless of any purported US constitutional defect (which would only be claimed if judged by the Supreme Court of the United States, and you haven’t yet brought a suit to that judicial body), the Republic of Hawaii obeyed its laws, made a binding agreement, and executed it faithfully with the United States.

So what treaty matters? Well, the treaty that was executed by the Republic of Hawaii and the United States of America -> one and the same treaty, even if the US enacted it via joint resolution, and the Republic of Hawaii ratified it with their legislature.

I’ll leave you with this -> if you want to challenge the validity of the Newlands Resolution under US law, file suit with the SCOTUS. If they reject your suit, accept your failure and move on. If you want to challenge the validity of the Newlands Resolution under international law, you’ll have to sue on behalf of the Republic of Hawaii in some international court…which would mean requiring recognition from the UN…which would mean getting past the US veto in the UN Security Council. Good luck.

Comment from KenConklin
Time: August 24, 2009, 12:50 am

Arnie, with all due respect, you simply didn’t read the post. The Treaty of Annexation was offered by Hawaii in 1897 and accepted by the U.S. in 1898. So, where do you get your 1910 date? I’ll tell you what you should have known if you had read the post. I found the Treaty of Annexation in a court decision from 1910 which included the Treaty of Annexation from 1897/1898 in an appendix. I gave you the URL where you can read the entire court decision, from 1910, which includes in an appendix the Treaty from 1897/1898. So try read.

Comment from arnie
Time: August 24, 2009, 2:10 am

Jere, an interesting thing about the Ceded Lands case 07-1372 SCOTUS that was heard earlier this year, when you read the Supreme Court transcripts, particularly (p.56) where Bennett closes his argument, he states “that pursuant to the Newlands Resolution, the Organic Act and the Admissions Act the State has perfect title.”

Of course pursuant to the three controversial documents Bennett argues for, the state does appear to have perfect title, however, we have to remember that this case was very narrow. As we see on (p 51) when Justice Kennedy asks the defense lawyer Mr. Shanmugam, representing the plaintiffs, OHA, Jon Osorio, etc…, the SCOTUS is only going to rule in accordance with the validity of those three documents. If in the future, the issue of the annexation treaty comes up and invalidates those documents, a SCOTUS ruling on the same question, could prove to have a very different outcome.

JUSTICE KENNEDY: “Your whole case rests on a cloud on the title in favor of your clients. But you– you ignore the cloud on the title that has been entered against the State. ”

MR. SHANMUGAM: “Well, first of all, our whole theory has never been that there is a cloud on the titles. To be sure, we have maintained at various points in this litigation that native Hawaiians do have potentially valid legal claims, as well as moral and political claims to the underlying land, But we never argued that the injunction in this case should be based on some assessment of the existence or validity of legal claims…”

The reason Mr. Shanmugam is “ignoring the cloud on the title…”that Justice Kennedy brings up, is that if that becomes the focus, it will open the door to other claims that Shanmugam refers to when he makes reference to “potentially valid legal claims, as well as moral and political claims…”

Shanmugam has to keep this case narrow between the Admission Act and the Apology Resolution, because if it begins to expand its reach into the Newlands Resolution, (which by the way is hardly mentioned in this SCOTUS hearing), it will have to include the legitimacy of the states claim to perfect title, and thus the legitimacy of the Joint Resolution as having the authority to ratify annexation

ALSO, in regard to your last paragraph about taking this to the UN, you may be right that the US veto power might prevent decolonization from occurring. However, it’s important to know that Hawaii’s unique history allows for claims to both decolonize with the UN as well as de-occupy, through the International Court of Justice, Hague Convention IV.

I don’t doubt that at this time, the State Department and the Office of the Legal Advisor have drawn up a strategies on how best to respond to this claim should international lawyers representing the Kingdom of Hawaii file for international recognition with either the ICJ or the UN Decolonization Committee.

Comment from arnie
Time: August 24, 2009, 3:16 am

Sorry Ken, I did read but I thought you had dug up some revised obscure “Treaty of Annexation” from 1910 that was signed by the Senate of the Republic, but it’s still not a treaty of Annexation between the US SENATE, who would need to ratify the treaty, and the KINGDOM OF HAWAII… or even the US SENATE and the REPUBLIC OF HAWAII.

I gave you the benefit of the doubt of having in your possession some weird alternative treaty that the Territory concocted for whatever purpose.

A good analogy is that in order for the United States to ratify the UN Charter, it needed the 2/3rd Senate vote. If in 1946, the UN Charter was ratified with simply a joint resolution, the 1953 Bricker amendment would not have been such an issue. Congress would then, in wanting to back out of the UN Charter, just filed another Joint Resolution and not gone through the attempt at amending Article VI of the Constitution.

Further, what does the following mean if it doesn’t mean that there is no “annexation treaty” between the United States and Hawaii?

The Constitution gives the Senate the power to approve, by a two-thirds vote, treaties made by the executive branch. SENATE 2/3 VOTE: TREATY, RATIFY

The Senate has rejected relatively few of the hundreds of treaties it has considered in its history. Many others, however, have died in committee or been withdrawn by the president rather than face defeat. DEFEATED!

Some presidents have found it helpful to include senators in negotiating treaties in order to help pave the way for later Senate approval. YES, LIKE SENATOR MORGAN, BUT MORGAN WAS NOT SUCCESSFUL IN PAVING WAY FOR SENATE APPROVAL.

The requirement for a two-thirds vote ensures that a treaty will need bipartisan support to be approved. 2/3RD VOTE

The Senate may also amend a treaty or adopt various changes, which may lead the other nation, or nations, to further negotiate the treaty.

The president may also enter into executive agreements with foreign nations that are not subject to Senate approval. AN AGREEMENT IS NOT A TREATY

Constitutional Provisions

Article II, section 2, of the Constitution states that the president “shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur.” These few words are the cornerstone to a major part of our system of divided powers, checks and balances.

Comment from Jere Krischel
Time: August 24, 2009, 7:51 am

“Of course pursuant to the three controversial documents Bennett argues for, the state does appear to have perfect title, however, we have to remember that this case was very narrow. As we see on (p 51) when Justice Kennedy asks the defense lawyer Mr. Shanmugam, representing the plaintiffs, OHA, Jon Osorio, etc…, the SCOTUS is only going to rule in accordance with the validity of those three documents. If in the future, the issue of the annexation treaty comes up and invalidates those documents, a SCOTUS ruling on the same question, could prove to have a very different outcome.”

Arnie, the oral arguments of course, are interesting as footnotes, but the real question is the ruling, which in this case thoroughly invalidated the factually inaccurate whereas clauses of the Apology Resolution. Simply by the mechanism of statutory construction, the whereas clauses were found to have no legal weight whatsoever – something any first year law student could have told the Hawaii Supreme Court. More importantly, though, one must acknowledge that the SCOTUS is the ultimate arbiter of constitutionality, and any claims of unconstitutionality without the weight of the SCOTUS behind them, are simply that – claims.

” or even the US SENATE and the REPUBLIC OF HAWAII.”

Well, it was passed by both the House and Senate of the US, and the Republic of Hawaii, so there you go – proof. But I’ll do you one better. Look at the world around you. Look at the government of the State of Hawaii which has been comprised by the people, for the people and of the people of Hawaii. Look at the international recognition of US citizenship of people born in Hawaii since 1898, and the actions of every nation in the world in recognizing annexation as legal and binding. Look at the people of Hawaii, who pay taxes, vote in national elections, receive federal dollars, and enjoy all the rights and benefits of US citizenship. If you need any more proof that Hawaii is an integral part of the United States, simply observe the world in and out of Hawaii.

“A good analogy is that in order for the United States to ratify the UN Charter, it needed the 2/3rd Senate vote.”

No, that’s not true. The US can choose whatever method it wants to ratify something like the UN Charter. US citizens may object if it is not by 2/3rd Senate vote, but ultimately the SCOTUS would decide the constitutionality of that case, not the UN.

A better analogy is this -> you and your wife have been married for 110 years. You have raised children together, grand children together, great-grand children, great-great grand children, worked together, shared the trials and tribulations of marriage and acted as husband and wife in both your personal lives and public lives. Then all of a sudden, one of your great-great-great-grand children decides that your marriage license is invalid because of a typo. Of course your family knows that your marriage is real. And the government has no reason to invalidate your marriage based on a typo. But that one great-great-grandchild is really really insistent that you have a “fake” marriage.

Comment from Jere Krischel
Time: August 24, 2009, 7:55 am

“However, it’s important to know that Hawaii’s unique history allows for claims to both decolonize with the UN as well as de-occupy, through the International Court of Justice, Hague Convention IV.”

No it doesn’t. Hawaii was legally and legitimately removed from the list of non-self-governing territories in 1959. The only people who colonized Hawaii were the original Marquesan settlers, and the Tahitian invaders who followed a few hundred years later. Hawaii was only occupied once, in 1843, by the British, and the ICJ and Hague Convention didn’t even exist when the international recognized, sovereign and independent Republic of Hawaii existed, and sued for annexation with the US.

Now, if you lie about Hawaii history, you can try to make a case that colonization occurred, and try to convince uninformed people that it should be treated in a disparate way, but any significant digging for the true history of Hawaii shows clearly that there was never any colonization, that it independently sued for annexation, and since 1959 is self-evidently self-governing.

Comment from arnie
Time: August 24, 2009, 10:52 am

One of the best things about Admission Day 2009, is that this discussion has moved forward. Suddenly the chatter represented since 2006 Admission Day at Iolani Palace seems very old. There is a new paradigm. For many people who have been unable to make sense of the idea that “we may never have been married” to begin with, there is more acceptance of that. For those who are comfortable with the old dialogue focusing on issues like kingdom=racism, or blount v. morgan, they should have been there keeping the dialogue fixed on these old paradigms. But maybe they were there and surprised that the discussion had changed.

What do we do now, us old unmarried couple? Do we stay together out of convenience, let our children bicker and squabble and be angry at the licensing board for issuing invalid marriage licenses, do live in harmony, separate but together back at the old plantation commune or move about independently in the retirement home built over the dilapidated shacks that used to be our home.

Our children are all curious as to what we old married couple are going to do now. They all have different ideas and we will listen to them discuss our options. Our children are grown up now, and they will make a wise decision… as long as those greedy gold-digging partners from the continent that some of our kids married stop trying to weasel wedges in our family and instead participate in cooperative and meaningful discussion.

Anyway Jere, regarding the SCOTUS discussion, pls reread because the point was not on the SCOTUS decision, rather the point is that SCOTUS is aware of this unresolved issue of annexation, and neither the Supreme Court nor the plaintiff’s lawyer wanted to make that the issue of this case.

Comment from Jere Krischel
Time: August 24, 2009, 11:23 am

One of the saddest things about Admission Day 2009 is that a government frightened of the radical victimhood activists it has cultivated through misinformation taught at the UH Manoa Hawaiian Studies department, caved into the whimsical fantasies of this tiny vocal minority, and insulted the heritage of the many, many patriots who worked so hard to get Statehood passed – patriots of all races and backgrounds.

The fact of the matter is that we created this monster by pandering to the ideas of racial separatism and embracing a victimhood mythology that excuses people for their personal failings. Hawaii is not only an American State, it is the most American State of the Union, and bowing to pressure from well funded victimhood activists is truly deplorable.

What we need now is a leader from the victimhood community to stand up, realize the error of their ways, and preach to those disenchanted and abused masses that we are a unified State of Hawaii, with equality for all people regardless of race, an integral part of the United States, and masters of our own destiny. Blaming the bad behaviors and current plight of people today on events over a hundred years gone by, with only the most tangential connection to anyone today, is a recipe for disaster, and is more likely the cause of our problems than any possible path to solution.

Until that day comes, the truth, although outfunded by the hundreds of millions of dollars accessible to the victimhood industry, will still be spoken, will still be heard, and the lies of those who would deny Statehood will be exposed.

He Hawaii au; he mau Hawaii kakou a pau. I am Hawaiian; we are all Hawaiians.

Comment from KenConklin
Time: August 24, 2009, 2:09 pm

Arnie says “One of the best things about Admission Day 2009, is that this discussion has moved forward. Suddenly the chatter represented since 2006 Admission Day at Iolani Palace seems very old. There is a new paradigm.”

Well, it’s actually the same paradigm in 2009 that it was in 2006: A bunch of hooligans who don’t like Hawaii Statehood yell and scream against it, and intimidate people against celebrating it — My friends and I were not allowed to celebrate Statehood in 2006 because of a bunch of goons who interfered with it; and the Statehood Commission felt it could not celebrate but only commemorate in 2009, because of worries over violence from the same gang of goons.

But the paradigm has indeed “advanced”, because now we have video of Uncle Sam’s head being bashed off, the 50th star being cut out of the flag and then burned. I think that might help persuade some U.S. Representatives and Senators to vote against the Akaka bill. Here’s my webpage I’ll be sending to them.

Hawaii golden jubilee (50th anniversary of statehood) included ripping the 50th star off the U.S. flag and burning it. Congress must not pass the Akaka bill because it would empower anti-American secessionists.
http://tinyurl.com/n32om9

I do believe the general public is getting increasingly impatient with the sovereignty activists and more willing to stand up against them.

Of course on Thursday we’ll be treated to another hour-long TV panel discussion on PBS Hawaii filled with anti-statehood propaganda where the only panelists are anti-statehood (including moderator Dan Boylan). That’s how it always is. Pure propaganda; no participation from someone knowledgeable enough to talk back effectively.

Comment from arnie
Time: August 24, 2009, 3:12 pm

Why Ken, you’re in the PBS video too! The one premiering this Thursday on PBS at 7:30!

btw, I think Dan Boylan might have something to say over your assertion of his character as being anti-statehood.

Comment from swearingster
Time: August 25, 2009, 12:21 am

>Hawaii golden jubilee (50th anniversary of statehood) included ripping the 50th star off the U.S. flag and burning it. Congress must not pass the Akaka bill …<

as a hawai’i nationalist, i can find common ground with conklin here!! akaka bill should not pass. it’s really a silly, simplistic solution to the problem of attaining international recognition of our new nation. mahalo nui loa, conklin. thanks for your support! my offer: let’s work together to stop akaka bill. got any good ideas?

Comment from A OK
Time: August 25, 2009, 2:39 am

KenConklin “The Republic offered the Treaty of Annexation below in 1897, and the U.S. accepted it in 1898. A copy of the treaty is provided below.”

wow awesome, been reading on treaties, and how they need to be ratified to be valid, would you have a copy of the U.S. version of the ratified treaty Ken? You know so its valid and all.

Comment from Jere Krischel
Time: August 25, 2009, 8:18 am

Well, A OK, if you think that the US didn’t ratify the treaty legally according to US law, take it up with the Supreme Court. They certainly ratified and executed the treaty legally according to international law, and the annexation of Hawaii has been recognized by every nation on the planet since 1898.

What you have here is radical victimhood activists trying to undo the self-governance of the multi-racial public of Hawaii, based on a technicality that they’re too afraid to challenge in court. By keeping the answer ambiguous, they can extend their demagoguery decade after decade – it’s obvious they’re not interested in a real answer.

Tell me, A OK, if the SCOTUS actually ruled that the Newlands Resolution was a constitutional method for enacting a treaty with the sovereign, independent and internationally recognized Republic of Hawaii, would you then accept that Hawaii is the 50th state?

Comment from arnie
Time: August 25, 2009, 11:30 am

What makes Hawaii’s situation unique is that the US did not ratify the treaty according to US law. However, international communities began to recognize Hawaii’s annexation. At that time, as it is now, the way others recognized Hawaii or other territories, was what defined our political status.

That is how Hawaii moved from being recognized by the Family of Nations, to only some recognizing the Republic of Hawaii, to eventually all recognizing the Territory of Hawaii and Statehood. That is not to say, that that will always be the case, because right now, there are a number of smaller countries, that are willing to recognize Hawaii’s independence and will do so when the time is right.

In reading an earlier posting on the Japanese protest of US annexation of Hawaii, we get a brief glimpse of the process by which Sen. Morgan controlled the annexation proceedings and can begin to understand the surreptitious process by which “annexation” occurred, particularly through the efforts of the State Department.

http://statehoodhawaii.org/wp/index.php/2009/08/17/statehood-countdown-5-2/

On the narrow question of whether of not the Newlands Resolution was a “constitutional method for enacting a treaty” with the Republic of Hawaii, particularly now, after the Apology Resolution, I would assume for political reasons SCOTUS would still rule in favor of legitimizing annexation, however, I certainly do not think it would be a unanimous vote and the decision would probably do nothing to settle this debate– except to say… “that’s what the law says…” which would likely be different from what, as was posted above, what the Constitution says.

In the realm of law and the real world process by which Hawaii could move towards self-determination, there is the possibility that Hawaii could change its status within the United Nations, and be re-recognized as a Non-Self-Governing territory, or have international lawyers like Matthew Craven of the ICJ rule that Hawaii is illegally occupied. Either way, SCOTUS will not be part of those discussions.

Comment from Jere Krischel
Time: August 25, 2009, 12:37 pm

“That is how Hawaii moved from being recognized by the Family of Nations, to only some recognizing the Republic of Hawaii…”

Um, wrong. Every nation that ever had diplomatic relations with the Kingdom recognized the Republic of Hawaii. http://historymystery.grassrootinstitute.org/recognition-of-the-republic-of-hawaii/

“In the realm of law and the real world process by which Hawaii could move towards self-determination…”

We already have self-determination. The State of Hawaii is governed by a body politic of the people, by the people and for the people. We don’t have any appointed Territorial Governor from Washington D.C. anymore.

“Either way, SCOTUS will not be part of those discussions.”

Only because these discussions won’t happen -> nobody has standing to contest the self-governance of Hawaii, and nobody can with a straight face assert that Hawaii is not self-governing today. Trying to put this particular bit of toothpaste back into the tube, after it’s been used, spit out, rinsed through the sewers and dissolved in the ocean, is simply a non-starter.

Comment from arnie
Time: August 25, 2009, 1:16 pm

Sorry, Jere, you’re right, they did recognize the Republic when it no longer looked like the Queen would be restored. The point that you make so well is that independence will come through international recognition and not SCOTUS. Just as those international treaties of recognition that were signed after what even the US calls an “illegal overthrow” in section 1 of the Apology Resolution, international recognition would occur without the regard of federal law– just as the Republic did not regard Hawaiian Kingdom law.

Internationally, the world recognizes that Hawaii has not attained self-determination, although under the peculiar newspeak of Richard Nixon, he did, within federal law, alter the meaning of self-determination in context of the Navajo nation.

Anyway, the future is tremendously uncertainty in that in the realm of the economic outlook for the US in the long-term, there is momentum from China and India, and other smaller countries to peg their currencies to the IMF’s SDR as the new international currency reserve, rather than sustaining the federal reserve.

If that should occur, I think we all know what will happen to our economy and at that point, it would be fiscally appropriate to let Hawaii go. I would not like to see our economy in ruins, it’s just an example of a real non-act-of-god scenario by which the US and Hawaii could mutually part.

It might also be of interest to look at what kind of national policy was being asserted before Hawaii became a state: namely the system by which the dollar became the international reserve currency in the post WWII years is part of the same machine by which Hawaii and Alaska Statehood occurred. http://statehoodhawaii.org/wp/index.php/2009/08/14/statehood-countdown-8/

Comment from Jere Krischel
Time: August 25, 2009, 2:03 pm

“Internationally, the world recognizes that Hawaii has not attained self-determination…”

That’s simply not true. Hawaii was removed from the UN non-self-governing territories list in 1959, an explicit recognition that Hawaii has attained self-determination.

Comment from Jere Krischel
Time: August 25, 2009, 2:05 pm

“The point that you make so well is that independence will come through international recognition and not SCOTUS.”

The problem you face is that the Kingdom of Hawaii was already recognized as replaced by the Republic of Hawaii, and the Republic of Hawaii was already recognized as annexed to the US. So more than simply “international recognition”, you need to have two steps of “international de-recognition” -> and those kinds of procedures simply do not exist.

Comment from swearingster
Time: August 25, 2009, 7:02 pm

Return to the Hawaiian citizens the Aina and their sovereignty!

——————————————————————————–

RESTORATION OF THE INDEPENDENT NATION STATE OF HAWAI`I UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW
Professor Francis Anthony Boyle
Mable Smyth Hall, Honolulu, O’ahu, Hawai`i
December 28, 1993
[An edited and updated version of this testimony was published in St. Thomas Law Review, Volume 7, Summer 1995]

I’m very happy to be here this evening with you, and I’m very honored that the Sovereignty Commission would invite me to come and speak this evening. I also want to express my gratitude to Bumpy Kanahele and the members of the Ohana Council who have been serving as my sponsors here, for the week that I’m here.

Now as I understand it the Sovereignty Commission is looking into models, examples, of where the native people of Hawai’i can go in light of the state legislation that has been adopted and also now in light of the recent federal statute that has just been signed into law by President Clinton. And I’ve been asked to come here tonight to discuss one particular model, for the future, for Native Hawaiian people to consider. Understand I was not invited here to go through all the possibilities that you might have. I’m happy to comment on some of them if you have questions and give you my opinion about them. And understand its not for me to tell Native Hawaiian people what to do. You have to decide for yourselves. But, one thing I can do is to describe a particular vision of the future; how you might go about achieving it; what would be the consequences; what would be the basis of authority for doing it; particularly in light of public law 103-150 signed by President Clinton.

click to continue

[apologies to swearingstar, but the post was too long so I moved it in it's entirety under "Documents"...admin...]

——————————————————————————–

Comment from A OK
Time: August 25, 2009, 9:40 pm

“Jere Krischel
on Aug 25th, 2009 at 8:18 am

Well, A OK, if you think that the US didn’t ratify the treaty legally according to US law, take it up with the Supreme Court. They certainly ratified and executed the treaty legally according to international law, and the annexation of Hawaii has been recognized by every nation on the planet since 1898.”

im just asking for a copy of the ratified version. dont you know where i can find a copy?

Comment from Jere Krischel
Time: August 26, 2009, 8:38 am

Well, A OK, Ken has already provided you with a ratified copy of the treaty, ratified by the Republic of Hawaii. For the United States, they enacted the treaty via joint resolution, aka, the Newlands Resolution, so you can find a copy of that from the US government archives.

If your assertion is that the joint resolution wasn’t good enough, feel free to take the matter up with the US courts who have jurisdiction over the interpretation of the US constitution. If they refuse to hear your case, or grant you standing, it should be taken as a sign that your opinion on the matter is not legally binding.

Comment from Jere Krischel
Time: August 26, 2009, 8:42 am

“Return to the Hawaiian citizens the Aina and their sovereignty!”

The citizens of Hawaii already have their sovereignty and their aina -> the State of Hawaii is a government of the people, by the people and for the people, and the public lands are rightfully in the hands of the multi-racial public of Hawaii, as they always have been.

Perhaps what you really mean to say is, “Give a tiny minority of racial victimhood activists power as ali’i over all the people of Hawaii, with no check or balance on the racism they would practice as they preach”?

Tell me, swearingster, what “sovereignty” are you missing today that you would somehow have if they put Bumpy in charge of the islands?

Comment from A OK
Time: August 27, 2009, 1:29 am

Jere Krischel
on Aug 26th, 2009 at 8:38 am
“Well, A OK, Ken has already provided you with a ratified copy of the treaty, ratified by the Republic of Hawaii. For the United States, they enacted the treaty via joint resolution, aka, the Newlands Resolution, so you can find a copy of that from the US government archives.”

So you’re saying that the Unitied States doesnt have a ratified copy of the treaty?

Jere Krischel
on Aug 26th, 2009 at 8:38 am
“If your assertion is that the joint resolution wasn’t good enough, feel free to take the matter up with the US courts who have jurisdiction over the interpretation of the US constitution. If they refuse to hear your case, or grant you standing, it should be taken as a sign that your opinion on the matter is not legally binding.”

I never made that assertion, again I’m just asking for ratified copy of the treaty, ratified by the United States.

Comment from Jere Krischel
Time: August 27, 2009, 7:18 am

Well, A OK, I’ll tell you what, the United States has a duly enacted copy of the treaty, and you can simply look that up by the name “The Newlands Resolution”. If you believe that this duly enacted treaty is not legal under US law, please, feel free to file suit with the appropriate US court.

You seem to focus on this technicality without acknowledging that it would only be a problem if the SCOTUS decided it is. Your peculiar opinion of the matter, while amusing, has no legal weight at all.

How about this, do you have a duly ratified copy of your birth certificate? Ratified by 2/3rds of the US Senate? I’m just asking for a ratified copy of your birth certificate. (The implication here being that you’re not legally born unless your birth certificate was ratified by the US senate, something as far fetched as asserting the Newlands Resolution was not legal.)

I think a more interesting question is this -> if the US Senate came back into session, and officially ratified the Newlands Resolution, and Obama signed it, would you accept that as legal under US law? My suspicion is that no matter how many i’s were dotted or t’s were crossed, you’d still find a reason to object. This question has become a matter of faith for you, and no matter what proof or rationale presented to you, you will not and cannot see past your own misconceptions.

Comment from arnie
Time: August 27, 2009, 11:01 am

Jere, there are two points that you always fail to address– and they’ve been asserted in the above thread– so I’m wondering why it is that you are so determined to retard this discussion by anchoring so steadfast to this Chesire Cat of Annexation.

#1. 2/3rd Senate ratification according the Constitution is the way treaties are ratified. This can be argued in the court of domestic and international law with different results. SCOTUS will probably rule in favor of Hawaii’s current political status, no matter how surreptitious the 1893-1898 events are.

#2 Hawaii became recognized as a Territory of the United States by different nations. So if the intl. community recognizes Hawaii as a Territory, then for all practical matters, it is. However, this is not steadfast. Does Hawaii have an international legal claim to assert independence? Yes. Does the SCOTUS decision (which does not exist) have a voice in this matter, internationally? No.

Your anger/frustration is directed to what you call a “tiny minority of racial victimhood.” As an American, which I am, your anger is misaligned. Your anger should be directed at the liars and cheats who have stained this country. For example, are you angry at Bernie Madoff or the people who want their investments back? Are you angry at Dick Cheney or the innocent Americans who were pulled off the street and detained. Or are you angry at a system that allows for this kind of chicanery?

Victims have rights, that is written into our constitution as well. But Hawaiians are not victims the way those who lost their money in an investment scam or who were abducted off the street are victims. Some might claim victimhood, but I am constantly impressed with the honorable and very smart ways those representing the Kingdom of Hawaii protected themselves from foreign aggression– whether British, French, Russian or American. Even the way Lili’uokalani signed her abdication to the Republic– she did so not as Queen, or head of state, but as “Liluokalani Dominis.”

For example: If those in the Republic who forced her abdication were savvy in international law as the Queen was, they would have known that Liliuokalani Dominis did not have the authority to truly “abdicate” her throne. Although married to John Dominis, there was no one named Liliuokalani Dominis that had the right to abdicate.

Hawaiians can become victims if they continue to let the American occupiers dictate their status– and in some ways, that is what the Akaka Bill seems to do.

Hawaiians are not victims, and under Constitutional and International law, claims are valid. The problem is how to assert that law in the international community that recognizes the US claim of statehood/annexation. Annexation is like the Chesire Cat: nothing but a smile.

Comment from Jere Krischel
Time: August 27, 2009, 11:32 am

Let me address your two points:

#1 – Joint Resolution was used to annex Texas, so this precedent existed before the Newlands Resolution annexed Hawaii. I encourage anyone who disagrees with this to file suit in US courts. This cannot be argued in any international court, because the SCOTUS is the ultimate arbiter of US constitutionality, no one else.

#2 – The international community recognizes Hawaii as a State of the United States, and for all legal and practical matters, it is. To assert that because nations are not steadfast that we should argue for the apartheid of ancient Thracians, Gauls, Saxons and Semites into their ancient constituents, is to miss the point. The more pointed question is this -> does a small radical minority in Hawaii have the right to assert independence against the wishes of the vast majority of the citizens of Hawaii. Clearly the answer is no, both on moral and legal grounds.

My anger is directed at the liars and cheats who have taken advantage of the Hawaiian people by pretending that their problems are the fault of white people from the 1800s. My anger is directed at the con-artists who stole people’s houses and livelihoods with “Perfect Title” scams, and who poison our children with lies about victimhood. As much damage as Madhoff has ever done, the history twisting by these so called “sovereignty” activists has done more vile damage, more damage to the soul.

“Even the way Lili’uokalani signed her abdication to the Republic– she did so not as Queen, or head of state, but as “Liluokalani Dominis.””

Of course, she wasn’t queen anymore – she had been deposed on January 17, 1893. She was simply a common rebel in her misprison of treason during the 1895 failed rebellion.

“Hawaiians can become victims if they continue to let the American occupiers dictate their status– and in some ways, that is what the Akaka Bill seems to do.”

All Hawaiians of all races are Americans, and we have not been occupied since 1843 by the British. The victimhood narrative you seem to have fallen victim to is misdirected.

“Hawaiians are not victims, and under Constitutional and International law, claims are valid.”

What claims? For what? For a race-based state run by a tiny fringe minority of neo-ali’i?

You on the one hand admit that for all practical matters, Hawaii is a State of the Union, but then dream of a world where this can change, by hook or by crook. Why? What is it that you personally gain from this? Do you get an extra vote? An international policy more according to your likes? Can you compare that to what you propose to take away from the people of Hawaii?

Comment from A OK
Time: August 27, 2009, 4:41 pm

Jere Krischel
on Aug 27th, 2009 at 7:18 am

“Well, A OK, I’ll tell you what, the United States has a duly enacted copy of the treaty, and you can simply look that up by the name “The Newlands Resolution”. If you believe that this duly enacted treaty is not legal under US law, please, feel free to file suit with the appropriate US court.”

I’m just asking for a copy of the U.S. version of the ratified Treaty of Annexation, if there is none then im cool with that, but cant you just give me a straight answer?

“How about this, do you have a duly ratified copy of your birth certificate? Ratified by 2/3rds of the US Senate? I’m just asking for a ratified copy of your birth certificate. (The implication here being that you’re not legally born unless your birth certificate was ratified by the US senate, something as far fetched as asserting the Newlands Resolution was not legal.)” why do you avoid my question with misdirection? i said nothing about the newlands resolution, again all im asking for is U.S. version of the ratified Treaty of Annexation

if you cant provide me where i can find a copy of it, then just say so.

and Birth Certificates doesn’t need to be ratified by US Senate, but a treaty does need to be ratified for it to be legal, since you dont seem to know that.

Comment from Jere Krischel
Time: August 27, 2009, 5:36 pm

“Birth Certificates doesn’t need to be ratified by US Senate, but a treaty does need to be ratified for it to be legal, since you dont seem to know that.”

Actually, neither the treaty which annexed Texas or the treaty which annexed Hawaii were “ratified” by the Senate -> they were legally enacted by joint resolution, but apparently you don’t seem to know that.

Comment from arnie
Time: August 27, 2009, 6:47 pm

The reason that the Supreme Court can rule upon the joint resolution that made Texas a state is that there was a legitimate treaty called the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalago in which the Mexicans surrendered to the Americans in the Mexican-American War in 1848.

It’s a legitimate treaty unlike the abdication letter. More info here: http://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/guadalupe-hidalgo/#documents
I’m not an expert, but I don’t think there is anything overtly controversial about the treaty– unlike Hawaii’s annexation treaty or the abdication letter, which are both illegitimate. At the very least, you should admit the controversy.

I would also think you should try to prove your point with the documentation A OK requests, rather than with accusations.

We should also not forget that Texas still has a secessionist movement… as do 30 something odd states in the union. Hawaii, remember, cannot secede, because it has never been legally annexed (Unless you can prove your point with the irreconcilable proof of legitimate treaties and documentation).

If you succeed in doing that, you should give that info to Gov. Lingle, because she was unable to prove that during the Hawaiian panel at the Statehood Commemoraion event, either.

Comment from Jere Krischel
Time: August 27, 2009, 7:36 pm

“The reason that the Supreme Court can rule upon the joint resolution that made Texas a state is that there was a legitimate treaty called the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalago in which the Mexicans surrendered to the Americans in the Mexican-American War in 1848.”

Check your dates. The Republic of Texas was annexed in 1845. The treaty in 1848 had no bearing on its legality.

Comment from Jere Krischel
Time: August 27, 2009, 7:38 pm

“unlike Hawaii’s annexation treaty or the abdication letter, which are both illegitimate”

Both the Republic of Hawaii annexation treaty and the Republic of Texas annexation treaty were enacted by the US via Joint Resolution. Both are legitimate and legal, and if you dispute that, you can always take it to a US court.

The abdication letter from Liliuokalani is also legitimate, and she abided by her word -> she supported the Republic of Hawaii, and was later a proud American citizen.

Casting aspersions on the legality of these documents is simply empty rhetoric, just as it would be empty for me to say that your birth was illegitimate because of a problem with your documentation.

Comment from Jere Krischel
Time: August 27, 2009, 7:43 pm

“Hawaii, remember, cannot secede, because it has never been legally annexed (Unless you can prove your point with the irreconcilable proof of legitimate treaties and documentation).”

It has been legally annexed, and you’ve admitted that this is true for all practical purposes because all of the nations of the world have accepted this fact since 1898. Insofar as proof, your mistaken understanding of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848, three years after the legal annexation of Texas via US joint resolution in 1845, clearly shows that there was precedent, and the annexation of Hawaii was legal.

That all being said, I still ask you, what is it about the establishment of an independent nation that would give you reason to support it, and what rights are you going to end up taking away from the people of the State of Hawaii in order to get those personal benefits? If your beef is just that there is a technical glitch in the process, would you accept the ratification of the Newlands Resolution by the current Congress, and a signature by Obama, as a final seal of legality on the State of Hawaii? Or would you find yet another reason to deny the rights of all Hawaiians, simply because you envision additional privileges and benefits you may have if an independent nation is established?

What, in short, is your motivation, and why shouldn’t all the people of Hawaii oppose your trampling of their rights?

Comment from Jere Krischel
Time: August 27, 2009, 7:48 pm

After the United States and The Republic of Texas were unable to reach a Treaty agreement, Congress passed a Joint Resolution for Annexing Texas to the United States. The Republic of Texas’ Annexation Convention then submitted the Ordinance of Annexation to popular vote in October 1845 and the public approved the measure. This Ordinance of Annexation was submitted and approved by the House and Senate of the United States and signed by the President on December 29, 1845. While this was an awkward, if not unusual, treaty process IT WAS FULLY ACCEPTED BY ALL PARTIES INVOLVED, AND MORE IMPORTANTLY ALL PARTIES PERFORMED ON THOSE AGREEMENTS MAKING THEM LEGALLY BINDING (SEE CONTRACT LAW). In addition, the United States Supreme Court decided in the case of DeLima v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 1 (1901), that annexation by a joint resolution of Congress is legal.

Point, set, match.

Comment from Jere Krischel
Time: August 27, 2009, 8:02 pm

Straight from DeLima v. Bidwell:

By article 2, 2, of the Constitution, the President is given power, ‘by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the senators present concur;’ and by article 6, ‘this Constitution and the laws [182 U.S. 1, 195] of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made or which shall be made under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land.’ It will be observed that NO DISTINCTION IS MADE AS TO THE QUESTION OF SUPREMACY BETWEEN LAWS AND TREATIES, except that both are controlled by the Constitution. A law requires the assent of both houses of Congress, and, except in certain specified cases, the signature of the President. A treaty is negotiated and made by the President, with the concurrence of two thirds of the senators present, but EACH OF THEM IS THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND.

“The territory thus acquired is acquired as absolutely as … in the case of Texas and Hawaii, by an act of Congress.”

So there you have it folks, the Supreme Court of the United States, clearly indicating by what power of the constitution Hawaii and Texas were annexed (Article 6, for those of you who were paying attention).

Now that we all agree that the annexation of Hawaii was real and legal, what is your next step in pursuing secession, or will you now give up the fight for independence now that your primary argument has been firmly put to rest?

Comment from arnie
Time: August 27, 2009, 8:07 pm

“In addition, the United States Supreme Court decided in the case of DeLima v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 1 (1901), that annexation by a joint resolution of Congress is legal.”

This was legal because this was a treaty ratified by the Senate, and Puerto Rico was a territory annexed as a result of the Spanish-American War. Again, how does this prove your point?

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=182&page=1

When this case refers to Hawaii annexation, this is the condition: ‘The Constitution confers absolutely upon the government of the Union the powers of making war and of making treaties; consequently that government possesses the power of acquiring territory, either by conquest or by TREATY.’ The territory thus acquired is acquired as absolutely as if the annexation were made, as in the case of Texas and Hawaii, by an act of Congress.

By the way this is a great case to bring up because this is a ruling on the issue of tariffs. After the “legitimate” annexation between Puerto Rico and the United States (although I think there was a moment when Puerto Rico was actually independent of Spain, but I have to check my notes) Hawaii sugar growers could not understand why Hawaii sugar growers had to pay tariffs and abide by quotas if Puerto Rico and Cuba did not.

Comment from Jere Krischel
Time: August 27, 2009, 8:51 pm

Let me lay it out for you once again – here’s the quote from DeLima v. Bidwell:

“By article 2, 2, of the Constitution, the President is given power, ‘by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the senators present concur;’ and by article 6, ‘this Constitution and the laws [182 U.S. 1, 195] of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made or which shall be made under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land.’ It will be observed that NO DISTINCTION IS MADE AS TO THE QUESTION OF SUPREMACY BETWEEN LAWS AND TREATIES, except that both are controlled by the Constitution. A law requires the assent of both houses of Congress, and, except in certain specified cases, the signature of the President. A treaty is negotiated and made by the President, with the concurrence of two thirds of the senators present, but EACH OF THEM IS THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND.”

Pay close attention to the bold parts. The SCOTUS is saying here that article 2,2 allows us to make treaties, and article 6 allows us to make laws. BOTH are the supreme law of the land. There is nothing in the constitution saying A must be a treaty, and B must be a law -> BOTH are considered the supreme law of the land, neither having paramount over the other.

Continuing on with DeLima v. Bidwell:

“The territory thus acquired is acquired as absolutely as … in the case of Texas and Hawaii, by an act of Congress.”

Here they’re CITING Texas and Hawaii as legal examples of territorial acquisition by an act of Congress.

So regardless of the particular matter at hand in DeLima v. Bidwell, the opinion clearly established:

A) both treaties and laws are the supreme law of the land, therefore there is no distinction of supremacy between the two;
B) Hawaii and Texas were legally annexed by acts of Congress.

Do I need to explain it more clearly, or do you have it now?

Pingback from State of Aloha –
Time: August 28, 2009, 12:53 pm

[...] we have seen through discussions over the last posting, there are still many who continue to assert that annexation was legitimate. When on the August [...]

Comment from A OK
Time: August 28, 2009, 5:01 pm

Jere Krischel
on Aug 27th, 2009 at 5:36 pm

Actually, neither the treaty which annexed Texas or the treaty which annexed Hawaii were “ratified” by the Senate -> they were legally enacted by joint resolution, but apparently you don’t seem to know that.

no the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo seeded Texas to the US from Mexico establishing the Rio Grande river as the border between those two countries

Joint resolutions are unilateral and do not extend past the borders of the US, only treaties extent past borders and are bilateral

hey you find that copy of the U.S. version of the ratified Treaty of Annexation yet? or does it not exist?

Comment from Jere Krischel
Time: August 28, 2009, 9:05 pm

“no the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo seeded Texas to the US from Mexico establishing the Rio Grande river as the border between those two countries”

Wrong. The Republic of Texas was an independent state, and enacted annexation in 1845, three years before the end of the Mexican-American war and the Treat of Guadalupe Hidalgo. You’re mistaking an international treaty between the Republic of Texas and the United States with a document of surrender from Mexico.

“Joint resolutions are unilateral and do not extend past the borders of the US, only treaties extent past borders and are bilateral”

As per DeLima v. Bidwell, both treaties and joint resolutions are the supreme law of the land, and both the annexation of Texas by joint resolution and Hawaii by joint resolution was explicitly cited as legal and constitutional under article 6. There is no requirement that an international agreement be enacted by treaty in the constitution.

Comment from Jere Krischel
Time: August 28, 2009, 9:06 pm

“hey you find that copy of the U.S. version of the ratified Treaty of Annexation yet? or does it not exist?”

Yes, A OK, that’s called the Newlands Resolution. Ratified by the Republic of Hawaii and enacted as the supreme law of the United States by joint resolution, legal according to the Supreme Court of the United States and internationally recognized by every nation on the planet that ever had diplomatic relations with the Kingdom and Republic of Hawaii, and every nation recognized since.

Comment from Jere Krischel
Time: August 28, 2009, 9:13 pm

Seriously guys, who’s giving you the “Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo” talking point? It took me all of three seconds of googling to figure out that the treaty was made 3 years after annexation was already completed with the independent, sovereign and internationally recognized Republic of Texas. If I can figure this out with just a few minutes of spare time, how do you think this would possibly play out if you brought this kind of argument to a court of law? I mean, seriously, you think rationales like this so filled with obvious holes help support your position?

Whatever so called “scholar” you’re quoting with the whole Guadalupe Hidalgo Treaty really needs to work on their basic research.

Comment from Jere Krischel
Time: August 28, 2009, 9:25 pm

A few minutes of googling later, I noticed an article by David Sai (the con-man behind the Perfect Title scam that stole money from people and caused many to lose their houses), which cited a justice department legal opinion in 1988 (not a court opinion which carries weight of law), and inferred from that a cloud over the constitutionality of the annexation of Hawaii. A terribly weak piece of scholarship to base one’s position on, from a convicted con-man no less.

Comment from admin
Time: August 28, 2009, 9:50 pm

Jere, I think you might be crossing over into the realm of slander which is not the kind of dialogue we encourage.

Perfect Title was neither a scam nor did it steal money. He did however, if I’m not mistaken lose his home, a sacrifice he made challenging the state title law. I know that out of this decision many title and escrow agents jumped ship. His challenge may not have been legal to the letter of state law, but again, the burdon of proof now lies in the hands of the state: they have to prove Perfect Title. They can claim that they have it, but cannot prove it.

Myth of Ceded Lands

Comment from A OK
Time: August 28, 2009, 11:55 pm

Jere Krischel
on Aug 28th, 2009 at 9:05 pm

“Wrong. The Republic of Texas was an independent state, and enacted annexation in 1845, three years before the end of the Mexican-American war and the Treat of Guadalupe Hidalgo. You’re mistaking an international treaty between the Republic of Texas and the United States with a document of surrender from Mexico.”

Texas could not be truly independent until Mexico relinquished its claim, Joint resolutions do not extent past US borders

Jere Krischel
on Aug 28th, 2009 at 9:06 pm

““hey you find that copy of the U.S. version of the ratified Treaty of Annexation yet? or does it not exist?””

“Yes, A OK, that’s called the Newlands Resolution. Ratified by the Republic of Hawaii and enacted as the supreme law of the United States by joint resolution, legal according to the Supreme Court of the United States and internationally recognized by every nation on the planet that ever had diplomatic relations with the Kingdom and Republic of Hawaii, and every nation recognized since.”

but the Newlands Resolution and the 1897 Treaty of Annexation are two different documents.

Jere Krischel
on Aug 28th, 2009 at 9:13 pm

“Whatever so called “scholar” you’re quoting with the whole Guadalupe Hidalgo Treaty really needs to work on their basic research.”

the same can be said about you, lets keep the ad hominem out of here.

Comment from Jere Krischel
Time: August 29, 2009, 11:26 am

“Perfect Title was neither a scam nor did it steal money.”

Yes, it was. David Sai was convicted (http://www.angelfire.com/hi2/hawaiiansovereignty/fraudperfecttitle.html), and his “Perfect Title” company was shut down in 1997 after a State of Hawaii investigation.

This is not slander, this is legal fact. David Sai took money from people, purporting to provide services and legal counsel that he had no authority to provide.

So from David Sai’s point of view, it’s easy to see why he supports this idea of anti-annexation -> it’s a money maker for him. Less fortunate are those he took advantage of, who have neither their money nor their hopes now.

Comment from Jere Krischel
Time: August 29, 2009, 11:30 am

“Texas could not be truly independent until Mexico relinquished its claim, Joint resolutions do not extent past US borders”

Tell that to the Supreme Court re: DeLima v. Bidwell. Texas was an independent, sovereign republic in 1845, which voluntarily annexed itself to the United States, just like Hawaii did later, by Joint Resolution passed in the Congress and signed by the President. Your protest to the contrary, it is clear that joint resolutions have been used, and can continue to be used, to enact treaties of annexation.

“but the Newlands Resolution and the 1897 Treaty of Annexation are two different documents.”

No, they’re not. They are the agreement by which the Republic of Hawaii was annexed to the United States, with both parties executing their responsibilities faithfully for the past 112 years.

Comment from Jere Krischel
Time: August 29, 2009, 11:32 am

http://starbulletin.com/97/12/19/editorial/editorials.html
Editorials
Friday, December 19, 1997
Courts should punish land title scam artists
FAILING to persuade judges in civil court with the absurd proposition that current land titles in Hawaii are voided by the alleged illegality of the U.S. annexation of the islands, co-founders of a title-searching company finally face criminal charges. Perfect Title Co. principals David Keanu Sai and Donald A. Lewis were indicted by a state grand jury on charges of attempted theft. The indictment comes more than a year after they began luring homeowners down a path paved in fool’s gold.
As the Star-Bulletin’s Rob Perez reported in August 1996, Sai and Lewis, charging $1,500 for a title search, were able to convince homeowners that their titles were invalid, on the theory that courts established after the overthrow of the monarchy in 1893 lacked authority to probate wills and approve transfers of property.
Perfect Title’s challenge of the state’s ownership of a site for a federal detention center was viewed five months ago by federal Judge David Ezra as “utterly and completely without merit.” Ezra added: “I don’t like to see the people of Hawaii victimized, and that’s what’s happening here.”
Michael and Carol Simafranca also face attempted theft and burglary charges. The Simafrancas lost possession of their Aiea home through foreclosure, then attempted to regain ownership based on a title search by Perfect Title. They hired a locksmith to gain entry to the house, moved back in and changed the locks to keep out the family that had bought the foreclosed property. The new owners eventually obtained a restraining order against the couple.
Undeterred by defeats in civil court, Perfect Title has continued to cause havoc in the state’s real estate industry and untold misery for families that have seen their home investments evaporate. The company has gone so far as to file a petition with the U.S. Supreme Court that is as half-baked as its underlying premise. Criminal prosecution appears to be the only way to bring an end to this incredible scheme and prevent these people from creating more victims.

Comment from Jere Krischel
Time: August 29, 2009, 11:32 am

http://starbulletin.com/98/02/27/business/story3.html
Friday, February 27, 1998
Perfect Title client buys house out of foreclosure
Edith Mar lost her home after stopping payments because of a title report
By Rob Perez
Star-Bulletin
The Kapahulu woman who lost her home after refusing to pay her mortgage based on the controversial findings of Perfect Title Co. has bought it back for an undisclosed amount.
Though Edith Mar never vacated the six-bedroom house, it was sold in a foreclosure sale last year after she stopped making the mortgage payments, citing the company’s conclusion that she didn’t have valid title to the property. Mar, who subsequently claimed she was duped by Perfect Title, was the first to lose her home — at least on paper — based on the company’s widely disputed findings.
Perfect Title uses 19th century Hawaiian Kingdom law to trace property ownership to the 1840s. The company invariably finds that existing titles are defective, usually claiming that any conveyance of property since the 1893 overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy is invalid.
Several judges have found the company’s logic to be flawed, and the company’s co-founders have been charged with attempted theft in connection with one case.
Once Mar realized she was losing the home her family has lived in since 1920, family members began negotiating to repurchase the house from the foreclosure buyer, Winifred Lee.
Even though Lee obtained title to the home, Mar remained in it throughout the negotiations. The buyback deal closed yesterday. Neither side would disclose a purchase price. But Derek Tomita, Lee’s attorney, said his client was paid enough to cover the $230,000 she paid for the foreclosed property plus fees and damages. “She’s satisfied with (the settlement),” Tomita said. Mar, contacted by telephone, declined to comment. Perfect Title owner Donald Lewis also declined comment.
In May, Mar and six other Hawaii residents, who each paid about $1,500 for their title searches, sued Perfect Title, accusing the company of unfair or deceptive practices. The company denied the charges. It also said it didn’t tell homeowners to stop paying their mortgages.
John Jubinsky, a title industry attorney who long has accused Perfect Title of running a scam, said the whole ordeal needlessly cost Mar and her family money. “It’s unfortunate these folks have been put through all this,” said Jubinsky, who wasn’t involved in the Mar case. “I think it’s sad, sad, sad.”

Comment from A OK
Time: August 30, 2009, 12:32 pm

Jere Krischel
on Aug 29th, 2009 at 11:30 am

“Tell that to the Supreme Court re: DeLima v. Bidwell. Texas was an independent, sovereign republic in 1845, which voluntarily annexed itself to the United States, just like Hawaii did later, by Joint Resolution passed in the Congress and signed by the President. Your protest to the contrary, it is clear that joint resolutions have been used, and can continue to be used, to enact treaties of annexation.”

Supreme Court re: DeLima v. Bidwell. is US Supreme Court, it has no jurisdiction or meaning outside of US borders.

“No, they’re not. They are the agreement by which the Republic of Hawaii was annexed to the United States, with both parties executing their responsibilities faithfully for the past 112 years.”

Yes, they are. If the Newlands Resolutuon was a Treaty it wouldn’t be a Joint Resolution.

Comment from Jere Krischel
Time: August 30, 2009, 1:49 pm

“Supreme Court re: DeLima v. Bidwell. is US Supreme Court, it has no jurisdiction or meaning outside of US borders.”

The question at hand is by what means the US constitution allows for annexation. DeLima v. Bidwell clearly shows that annexation is allowed by both treaty and joint resolution. The whole point you’re trying to make is that under US law a treaty ratified by 2/3 of the Senate is necessary for annexation -> which it is obviously not the case according to US constitutional law.

If your assertion is that under some other body of law (heretofore unspecified), that all treaties for all nations must be ratified by 2/3rds of their senate and signed by their president (presuming now also that all governments must have senates and presidents), you’ll have to cite that particular body of law.

“If the Newlands Resolutuon was a Treaty it wouldn’t be a Joint Resolution.”

It was a treaty enacted by Joint Resolution by the US, and duly ratified by the independent, sovereign and internationally recognized Republic of Hawaii. You’re trying to make a semantic argument, akin to saying that your “birth certificate” isn’t really a “birth certificate” because it’s labeled a “certificate of live birth”. It is a distinction without a constitutional difference (see DeLima v. Bidwell).

Comment from arnie
Time: August 30, 2009, 3:40 pm

Jere, at this unresolved juncture, you should probably take a look at the following post “State of Aloha,” and wonder why our ex-governor, John Waihee should agree with Kekuni Blaisdell in his very public assertion that the annexation process and the statehood process was fraudulent.

Without anything further to move this stalemate over the legitimate annexation process of Hawaii, you might want to consider that you are not entirely correct on your assertion and that John Waihee, a lawyer and two-term governor might have the clout to better assess this controversy.

Even our current governor Linda Lingle could not speak to the point– even after she was professionally and politically advised of this claim during the takeover of Iolani Palace grounds by Mahealani Kahau’s group earlier this year.

I think the research that you have contributed is very valuable, even if it does not fully substantiate your claims and I think we all look forward to your position on other events– like the replacement of Mckinley’s hand without the annexation treaty at McKinley high school, or the bicentennial observation of the founding of the hawaiian kingdom.

And I thank you for educating us on the process of Texas’s annexation to the U.S.

Comment from Jere Krischel
Time: August 30, 2009, 6:49 pm

“wonder why our ex-governor, John Waihee should agree with Kekuni Blaisdell in his very public assertion that the annexation process and the statehood process was fraudulent.”

Simple, John Waihee has always been a proponent of race-based privileges, and he and his family have benefitted directly from existing race-based programs. If he could dismantle the State of Hawaii, and enshrine a race-based system of government with him at the top, he’d be very happy.

” John Waihee, a lawyer and two-term governor might have the clout to better assess this controversy.”

Neither a lawyer, nor a two-term governor gets to override the Supreme Court of the United States. His self-interest in the matter is palpable, and one would expect such self-serving behavior from a politician.

“we all look forward to your position on other events– like the replacement of Mckinley’s hand without the annexation treaty at McKinley high school, or the bicentennial observation of the founding of the hawaiian kingdom.”

Well, the race-based activists in Hawaii have deep pockets, and I have no doubt that they will continue to do damage to our ohana for years to come. Notwithstanding that, it is my duty and obligation to fight for the aloha spirit, and the wisdom of our kupuna who declared in 1840 with their first constitution that all people are “of one blood.” The idea of apartheid in Hawaii must be resisted by all good people of character, no matter how powerful the other side may be.

One can only hope that the bicentennial observation of the founding of the Hawaiian Kingdom pays tribute to the many races which made it possible, including Keoni Olohana (aka, John Young), and the many other Kingdom patriots who fought for the ideas of aloha, and even considered annexation as early as 1854. My fear is that the victimhood activists will once again trounce out only a partial history, diminish the wisdom of the civil rights enshrined in the 1840 constitution, and blame the white man for all their modern day problems without acknowledging the entrenched system of haves and have-nots existent in the islands long before 1778.

Comment from Jere Krischel
Time: August 30, 2009, 6:50 pm

“And I thank you for educating us on the process of Texas’s annexation to the U.S”

My pleasure, and thank you for the conversation. If you ever want to get together over some food and talk story, let me know.

Comment from A OK
Time: August 31, 2009, 5:40 pm

Jere Krischel
on Aug 30th, 2009 at 1:49 pm

“The question at hand is by what means the US constitution allows for annexation.”

Well a treaty is a Bilateral agreement between 2 countries, a Joint resolution is only US internal law, it means nothing for the annexation of a country, because its unilateral, and does not extend outside of the US border, even with a supreme court decision(which like a joint resolution does not extend past US borders) its not legal internationally.

“If your assertion is that under some other body of law (heretofore unspecified), that all treaties for all nations must be ratified by 2/3rds of their senate and signed by their president (presuming now also that all governments must have senates and presidents), you’ll have to cite that particular body of law.”

not all Nations just the US
The US Constitution Article II: [The President] shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur.

so where is that U.S. ratified copy of that Treaty of Annexation again?

“You’re trying to make a semantic argument, akin to saying that your “birth certificate” isn’t really a “birth certificate” because it’s labeled a “certificate of live birth”. It is a distinction without a constitutional difference (see DeLima v. Bidwell).”

actually you are, all im asking for again is the U.S. version of the ratified Treaty of Annexation, not a different document with a different name and wording.

Comment from Jere Krischel
Time: August 31, 2009, 6:19 pm

“Well a treaty is a Bilateral agreement between 2 countries, a Joint resolution is only US internal law,”

You’re comparing apples and oranges. The Newlands Resolution was a bilateral agreement, with the sovereign, independent and internationally recognized Republic of Hawaii enacting the agreement via their own processes, and the sovereign, independent and internationally recognized United States of America enacting it via joint resolution. Are you trying to say that the Republic of Hawaii was not a party to the agreement laid out in the Newlands Resolution?

“not all Nations just the US
The US Constitution Article II: [The President] shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur.”

Again, I refer you to DeLima v. Bidwell, which cites Article 6 as having the power to agree to bilateral agreements with other independent nations for the purpose of annexation, both Texas and Hawaii being cited by the court. You keep flip-flopping here -> either this is a question of US law (in which case DeLima v. Bidwell, by the SCOTUS, is the final word on the matter), or this is a question of international law, which you have yet to cite.

“so where is that U.S. ratified copy of that Treaty of Annexation again?”

The Newlands Resolution, which was the US implementation of the bilateral agreement between the internationally recognized, sovereign and independent Republic of Hawaii and the US, is the document you’re looking for, and I’m sure you can find a copy of your own.

“all im asking for again is the U.S. version of the ratified Treaty of Annexation, not a different document with a different name and wording.”

Ah, so you’re not looking for the document which legally, according to the US Supreme Court, annexed the Republic of Hawaii to the United States -> you’re looking for some made up document just because you’d like to ask for some made up document. Again, I ask for the U.S. version of your ratified Birth Certificate, not a different document with a different name and wording.

Pingback from » Aug 21 Statehood Protest: the unstitching
Time: December 8, 2009, 2:26 pm

[...] More information of that historical event can be found here. [...]