Hawaii occupied by military

[tommyrp12]

Not sure if this goes in the foreign policy forum since this is considered a state, if so please move it.




Professor Chang’s Open Letter to Secretary of State John Kerry: Federal Recognition of Hawaiians Raises Questions of Foreign Relations

Dear Secretary Kerry:

Aloha and welcome to the Hawaiian Islands. I am a Professor of Law at the University of Hawaiʻi William S. Richardson School of Law. I am writing in my individual capacity and on behalf of others. The views expressed here are not those of the University of Hawai’i or the School of Law.

Since you will be in Honolulu, August 13, 2014, I ask whether you would be willing to meet with the Hawaiian community. The purpose of this meeting would be to clarify a legal issue of foreign relations that has become of critical importance to all in Hawaii these past months.

The Department of Interior, in June and July of this year held 15 statewide hearings as to whether to proceed with rulemaking that would result in administrative action recognizing Native Hawaiians as a federally recognized tribe. The testimony taken revealed that the single most important issue to the hundreds testifying was whether the United States has sovereignty over the Hawaiian Islands and whether the Kingdom of Hawai’i, a sovereign and independent nation continues to exist. This is a legal, not a political issue. We seek that you ask the Department of Justice, Office of Legal Counsel, to opine on whether the Kingdom of Hawai’i, as a subject of international law, ceases to exist in light of the international rule of law regarding the presumption of continuity.

The continued existence of the Kingdom would render the Department of Interior’s proposal legally questionable. The existence of the Kingdom raises the question that Hawai’i is occupied by the United States in violation of international and United States law. As a result, such occupation has extraordinary ramifications as to current United States foreign policy around the world because of the Kingdom of Hawai’i’s treaties with other independent nations. Officials of the Departments of Interior and Justice who represented the United States at these hearings did not answer these questions deferring to the Department of State as the appropriate agency.

These issues were also raised by a State official, Dr. Crabbe, Chief Executive Officer of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, an agency of the State of Hawai’i, in a letter, made public, to you. Although that letter was withdrawn by trustees of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, its relevancy was affirmed by hundreds of those testifying who cited to it. It contains a more detailed explanation of points raised herein. A copy of Dr. Crabbe’s complete letter of May 5, 2014 can be found at: http://www.oha.org/news/oha%E2%80%99...t-status-hawai (last checked August 4, 2014 4:10 PM.)

Moreover, a more detailed letter of mine, further discussing these issues, is being sent to your office in Washington D.C.

I can be reached through my offices at the University of Hawaii. Mahalo and Respectfully yours, Professor Williamson B.C. Chang, William S. Richardson School of Law, University of Hawaii at Manoa.

Williamson Chang,
Professor of Law, University of Hawaii

OHA’s top executive makes formal request to U.S. Department of State for legal opinion on the current status of Hawai‘i under international law

WASHINGTON, D.C. (May 9, 2014) – The Office of Hawaiian Affairs top executive submitted a formal request with the U.S. Department of State requesting a legal opinion from the U.S. Attorney General’s Office of Legal Counsel addressing the legal status of Hawai‘i under international law.

The Office of Legal Counsel drafts legal opinions of the U.S. Attorney General and also provides its own written opinions and oral advice in response to requests from the various agencies of the Executive Branch, which includes the Department of State.

Trustees and staff of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs are in Washington, D.C., at the invitation of the Department of State for a consultation with representatives of the federal government, federally recognized tribes and other indigenous peoples of the United States on May 9. The topic of the meeting is the World Conference on Indigenous Peoples, to be held at the United Nations, September 22-23, 2014. The meeting will take place at the U.S. Department of State, 23rd Street entrance, between C and D Streets, N.W., Washington, D.C.

In a letter addressed to Secretary of State John F. Kerry, OHA Chief Executive Officer Dr. Kamana‘opono Crabbe, described his request as a very important question that needs to be answered from an agency that is not only qualified but authorized to answer, saying that it is addressing very grave concerns of OHA’s activities in its efforts toward nation building.

“As the chief executive officer and administrator for the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, being a governmental agency of the State of Hawai‘i, the law places on me, as a fiduciary, strict standards of diligence, responsibility and honesty,” Crabbe said. “My executive staff, as public officials, carry out the policies and directives of the Trustees of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs in the service of the Native Hawaiian community. We are responsible to take care, through all lawful means, that we apply the best skills and diligence in the servicing of this community.”

Crabbe explained the action taken was prompted when one of his staff attended a presentation and panel discussion at the William S. Richardson School of Law on April 17, 2014 that featured former Hawai‘i Governor John Waihe‘e, III, Chairman of the Native Hawaiian Roll Commission, senior Law Professor Williamson Chang, and Dr. Keanu Sai, a political scientist. Click here to view a video of the Law School presentation and panel discussion.

“The presentations of Professor Chang and Dr. Sai provided a legal analysis of the current status of Hawai‘i that appeared to undermine the legal basis of the Roll Commission, and, as alleged in the panel discussions, the possibility of criminal liability under international law. Both Professor Chang and Dr. Sai specifically stated that the Federal and State of Hawai‘i governments are illegal regimes that stem from an illegal and prolonged occupation by the United States as a result of the illegal overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom government.” Crabbe said. “As a government agency of the State of Hawai‘i this would include the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, and by enactment of the State of Hawai‘i Legislature, it would also include the Roll Commission. Both Act 195 and U.S. Public Law 103-150, acknowledges the illegality of the overthrow.”

According to Crabbe, “These matters have raised grave concerns with regard to not only the Native Hawaiian community we serve, but also to the vicarious liability of myself, staff and Trustees of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, and members of the Native Hawaiian Roll Commission. The community we serve, the Trustees, and many of my staff members, to include myself, and the members of the Roll Commission are Native Hawaiians, who are direct descendants of Hawaiian subjects of the Hawaiian Kingdom.”

Crabbe said he wanted to seek an opinion on the veracity of these allegations from its in house counsel or from the State of Hawai‘i Attorney General, but felt he was prevented because there would appear to be a conflict of interest if these allegations were true.

In his letter, Crabbe said, “because the Department of State is the United States’ executive department responsible for international relations and who also housed diplomatic papers and agreements with the Hawaiian Kingdom, I am respectfully submitting a formal request to have the Department of State request an opinion from the Office of Legal Counsel, Department of Justice, addressing the following questions:
• First, does the Hawaiian Kingdom, as a sovereign independent State, continue to exist as a subject of international law?
• Second, if the Hawaiian Kingdom continues to exist, do the sole-executive agreements bind the United States today?
• Third, if the Hawaiian Kingdom continues to exist and the sole-executive agreements are binding on the United States, what effect would such a conclusion have on United States domestic legislation, such as the Hawai‘i Statehood Act, 73 Stat. 4, and Act 195?
• Fourth, if the Hawaiian Kingdom continues to exist and the sole-executive agreements are binding on the United States, have the members of the Native Hawaiian Roll Commission, Trustees and staff of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs incurred criminal liability under international law?”

Office of Hawaiian Affairs Letter
http://www.oha.org/nationbuilding/fi...State_Dept.pdf


Here is a book to brush up on the subject.

Military Government and Martial Law
By William Edward Birkhimer

[AngryCanadian]

They are still worried over the emergence of an Empire of the Rising Sun, thats why they are still in Japan and in Hawaii they are being controlled by the military..

[tommyrp12]

They are still worried over the emergence of an Empire of the Rising Sun, thats why they are still in Japan and in Hawaii they are being controlled by the military..

If you are referring to the military worrying about foreign countries. The empire would be us, that the rest of the world has to worry about. I could be wrong. I think It may have to do with the executive and his emergency orders to the military since at least 1933, perhaps the most notable situation dating back to the civil war IMO. If someone more versed in this area wants to correct me I welcome it. Until then this is my belief.


Emergency Powers

The Constitution does not expressly grant the President additional war powers or other powers in times of national emergency. However, many scholars think that the Framers implied these powers because the structural design of the Executive Branch enables it to act faster than the Legislative Branch. Because the Constitution remains silent on the issue, the courts cannot grant the Executive Branch these powers when it tries to wield them. The courts will only recognize a right of the Executive Branch to use emergency powers if Congress has granted such powers to the President.

A claim of emergency powers was at the center of President Abraham Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus without Congressional approval in 1861. Lincoln claimed that the rebellion created an emergency that permitted him the extraordinary power of unilaterally suspending the writ. With Chief Justice Roger Taney sitting as judge, the Federal District Court of Maryland struck down the suspension in Ex Parte Merryman, although Lincoln ignored the order. 17 F. Cas. 144 (1861).

President Franklin Delano Roosevelt similarly invoked emergency powers when he issued Executive Order 9066 directing that all Japanese Americans residing on the West Coast be placed into internment camps during World War II. Because Congress had already declared war, the U.S. Supreme Court found Congress to have recognized an ongoing emergency. Consequently, the President by issuing the order had acted in accordance with Congress's expressed intent, which was to respond to the emergency of war. For this reason, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld Executive Order 9066 in Korematsu v. United States as a constitutional exercise of Presidential Commander in Chief and emergency powers. 323 U.S. 214 (1944).

Harry Truman declared the use of emergency powers when he seized private steel mills that failed to produce steel because of a labor strike in 1952. With the Korean War ongoing, Truman asserted that he could not wage war successfully if the economy failed to provide him with the material resources necessary to keep the troops well-equipped. The U.S. Supreme Court, however, refused to buy the argument in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, voting 6-3 that neither Commander in Chief powers nor any claimed emergency powers gave the President the authority to unilaterally seize private property without Congressional legislation. 343 U.S. 579.

Senate Report 93-549

Senate Report 93-549 entitled "EMERGENCY POWERS STATUTES: Provisions of Federal Law Now In Effect Delegating To The Executive Extraordinary Authority In Time of National Emergency" was issued on November 19, 1973 by the "Special Committee on the Termination of the National Emergency" pursuant to Senate Resolution No. 9 - 93rd Congress, 1st Session.[1]

The “Special Committee on the Termination of the National Emergency” was created to examine the consequences of terminating the declared states of national emergency that then prevailed; to recommend what steps the Congress should take to ensure that the termination could be accomplished without adverse effect upon the necessary tasks of governing; and, also, to recommend ways in which the United States could meet future emergency situations with speed and effectiveness but without relinquishment of congressional oversight and control.[2]

At the time of these Senatorial discussions, there were in effect four presidentially proclaimed states of national emergency: In addition to the national emergency declared by President Franklin D. Roosevelt on March 6, 1933 (Proclamation No. 2039) and continued in force by Proclamation No. 2040 issued on March 9, 1933, there were also the national emergency proclaimed by President Harry S. Truman on December 16, 1950 (Proclamation No. 2914) during the Korean conflict, and the states of national emergency declared by President Richard Nixon on March 23, 1970 (Proclamation No. 3972), and August 15, 1971 (Proclamation No. 4074).[3]

These proclamations give force to over 470 provisions of Federal law. These hundreds of statutes delegate to the President extraordinary powers, ordinarily exercised by the Congress, which affect the lives of American citizens in a host of all-encompassing manners. This vast range of powers, taken together, confer enough authority to rule the country without reference to normal constitutional processes.[4]

Under the powers delegated by these statutes, the President may: seize property; organize and control the means of production; seize commodities; assign military forces abroad; institute martial law; seize and control all transportation and communication; regulate the operation of private enterprise; restrict travel; and, in a plethora of particular ways, control the lives of all American citizens.[5]

Congressional debate to "terminate" long-running states of National Emergency terminated on August 31, 1976 when Congress passed H.R. 3884 (S. 977) and signed by President Gerald Ford on September 14, 1976 as Public Law 94-412, 90 Stat. 1255, the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601-1651) which codified these emergency grants of power into the U.S. Code.[6]

Title V, Section 502 of P.L. 94-412 specifically exempts the statutory authority cited in the Proclamation of March 6, 1933 (Proclamation No. 2039) and continued in force by Proclamation No. 2040 issued on March 9, 1933 - Section 5(b) of the Act of October 6, 1917 "Trading Withe Enemy Act", as amended (12 U.S.C. 95a; 50 U.S.C. App. 5(b)) from termination.[7]

The "termination" was in name only. The emergency powers are now continued in the U.S. Code as permanent everyday powers.[8] The state of national emergency has become a permanent condition.[9]

States of national emergency are declared by the President by the issuance of a "Presidential Proclamation" or an "Executive Order". There is, of course, no specific constitutional authority given to do so, but the practice has never been challenged.[10] The validity of Executive Orders has been questioned many times, but a ruling as to the extent or limit to which they may be used has never been determined by the Judiciary or by the Congress.[11] Once a state of national emergency is declared, the President assumes extraordinary powers ordinarily exercised by the Congress.[12][13]

Every president since Roosevelt has used emergency powers extensively, some claim falsely that the United States has been in a continual and permanent state of declared national emergency since March 9, 1933.[14]

Article I of the Constitution vests all legislative power in Congress. Nowhere in the Constitution is the President empowered to make law. Nevertheless, in the course of executing Acts of Congress and of directing the executive branch, the President must issue numerous orders to the bureaucracy which have a binding effect on subordinate officials, and, in many cases, on Congress, and on individuals from the general public as well. For all intents and purposes many of these Executive directives or orders constitute "law", even though the parties affected may be unaware of their existence.[15]

Beginning with F.D.R., extensive use of delegated powers exercised under an aura of "crisis" has become a dominant aspect of the presidency. Concomitant with this development has been a demeaning of the significance of "emergency." It became a term used to evoke public and congressional approbation, often bearing little actual relation to events.[16]

The Executive Order declaring a state of national emergency in the last 80 years has become a governmental instrument of broad and increasing importance, a fact which has been made particularly obvious since 1933.[17]

An Executive Order once issued remains in effect until replealed or modified or expires. Besides presidential repeal or modification, Executive Orders may be repealed or modified by an act of Congress or Concurrent Resolution, or by a decision of the Judiciary.[18]

As of October 11, 2013, President Barack Obama has issued twenty-one un-classified Executive Orders declaring a state of national emergency or modifying a perviously issued Executive Order declaring a state of national emergency[19][20] and invoking delegated extraordinary powers.[21][22]

Executive Order 13651 "Prohibiting Certain Imports of Burmese Jadeite and Rubies" - 06-06-2013

Executive Order 13645 "Authorizing the Implementation of Certain Sanctions Set Forth in the Iran Freedom and Counter-Proliferation Act of 2012 and Additional Sanctions With Respect To Iran"- 06-03-2013

Executive Order 13628 "Authorizing the Implementation of Certain Sanctions Set Forth in the Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act of 2012 and Additional Sanctions With Respect to Iran" - 10-09-2012

Executive Order 13622 "Authorizing Additional Sanctions With Respect to Iran" - 07-30-2012

Executive Order 13620 "Taking Additional Steps To Address the National Emergency With Respect to Somalia" - 07-20-2012

Executive Order 13619 "Blocking Property of Persons Threatening the Peace, Security, or Stability of Burma" - 07-11-2012

Executive Order 13617 "Blocking Property of the Government of the Russian Federation Relating to the Disposition of Highly Enriched Uranium Extracted From Nuclear Weapons" - 06-25-2012

Executive Order 13611 "Blocking Property of Persons Threatening the Peace, Security, or Stability of Yemen" - 05-16-2012

Executive Order 13608 "Prohibiting Certain Transactions and Suspending Entry into the United States of Foreign Sanctions Evaders with Respect to Iran and Syria" - 05-01-2012

Executive Order 13606 "Blocking the Property and Suspending Entry into the United States of Certain Persons With Respect to Grave Human Rights Abuses by the Governments of Iran and Syria Via Information Technology" - 04-22-2012

Executive Order 13599 "Blocking Property of the Government of Iran and Iranian Financial Institutions" - 02-05-2012

Executive Order 13590 "Authorizing the Imposition of Certain Sanctions With Respect to the Provision of Goods, Services, Technology, or Support for Iran's Energy and Petrochemical Sectors" - 11-20-2011

Executive Order 13582 "Blocking Property of the Government of Syria and Prohibiting Certain Transactions With Respect to Syria" - 08-17-2011

Executive Order 13581 "Blocking Property of Transnational Criminal Organizations" - 07-24-2011

Executive Order 13574 "Concerning Further Sanctions on Iran" - 05-23-2011

Executive Order 13573 "Blocking Property of Senior Officials of the Government of Syria" - 05-18-2011

Executive Order 13572 "Blocking Property of Certain Persons With Respect to Human Rights Abuses in Syria" - 04-29-2011

Executive Order 13570 "Prohibiting Certain Transactions With Respect to North Korea - 04-18-2011

Executive Order 13566 "Blocking Property And Prohibiting Certain Transactions Related To Libya" - 02-25-2011

Executive Order 13551 "Blocking Property of Certain Persons With Respect to North Korea" - 08-30-2010

Executive Order 13536 "Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Conflict in Somalia" - 04-12-2010

None of these Executive Orders have been repealed or expired[23][24] and the United States continues to exist in a state of declared national emergency and the President continues to exercise extraordinary powers without reference to normal constitutional processes.[25]

Also see: Executive Order 13603 - National Defense Resources Preparedness - 03-16-2012[26][27]

This Special Committee study, contains a list of all provisions of Federal law, except the most trivial, conferring extra-constitutional powers to the President in time of national emergency, and was compiled by the staff under the direction of Staff Director William G. Miller, and Mr. Thomas A. Dine; utilizing the help of the General Accounting Office, the American Law Division of the Library of Congress, the Department of Justice, the Department of Defense, and the Office of Emergency Planning.[28]

The US Senate Report states: "That since March 09, 1933 the United States has been in a state of declared national emergency." [29]

"A majority of the people of the United States have lived all of their lives under emergency rule. For 40 years, freedoms and governmental procedures guaranteed by the Constitution have, in varying degrees, been abridged by laws brought into force by states of national emergency." [30]

Page IV of the Report states that "The Special Committee will also publish a list of Executive Orders, issued pursuant to statutes brought into force by declared states of emergency, at a later date." [31]

The List of Executive Orders was issued pursuant to S. Res. 242, 93d Cong., 2d Sess., as an un-numbered and un-dated Committee Print entitled: "EXECUTIVE ORDERS IN TIMES OF WAR AND NATIONAL EMERGENCY" Report of The Special Committee on National Emergencies And Delegated Emergency Powers - United States Senate 93rd Congress 2nd Session, June 1974[32] for the use by the special committee.

The Special Committee stated in "EXECUTIVE ORDERS IN TIMES OF WAR AND NATIONAL EMERGENCY": "It is our hope that this compilation, in addition to the compilation of Emergency Power Statutes (S.Report 93-549) , will be of assistance to the Legislature, the Executive, and the public when the Special Committee makes its final recommendations and proposed legislation concerning how delegated emergency powers can most effectively be provided to the Executive in time of necessity and yet maintain the integrity of constitutional processes." [33]

The means used by the executive branch to carry out the law and the policy goals set by Congress helps to explain the dominance of the Presidency in the government of the United States.[34]

The President is now the head of the most powerful executive complex in the world. In addition to his power as the Chief Executive of the largest superstate the world has ever seen, the President possesses, through congressional delegation, a growing amount of legislative or quasi-legislative power.[35]

This enormous power is sufficient reason to determine in exactly what ways the Executive gives directions to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed." It is important that the different ways in which the President gives orders to carry out the law be understood and studied because it has become evident in recent years that many Executive directives are given without any means on the part of Congress or the public of determining whether such orders are lawful and in the spirit of our constitutional system of checks and balances.[36]

Presidential war and national emergencies powers continue to be of great Congressional and public interest. Senate Report 93-549 Emergency Powers Statutes and committee print Executive Orders in Times of War and National Emergency provide researchers, both Congressional and public, invaluable primary-source information and documentation that still remains relevant to this day, especially considering the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.

As part of his response to the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, President George W. Bush formally declared a national emergency on September 14 by Proclamation 7463 and proceeded to issued Executive Orders on September 14 (E.O. 13223) and 23, 2001 (E.O. 13224) pursuant to the National Emergencies Act.

On October 8, 2001 President George W. Bush issued Executive Order 13228 establishing the Office of Homeland Security and the Homeland Security Council.

These Executive Orders have not expired or been repealed or revoked. The numerous declared states of national emergencies have been renewed, modified and expanded by President Barack Obama, and the United States continues to exist in a state of declared national emergency.

S. Report 93-549 Emergency Powers Statutes and the other reports of the Special Committee have provided the foundation of many research projects into Congressional delegated Executive extra-Constitutional authority. The importance of Senate Report 93-549 is the fact that has been cited in numerous Congressional Research Service (CRS) Reports for Congress publications; books; and articles.

As the final report of the Senate Special Committee on National Emergencies suggests that the prospect remains that further improvements and reforms in this policy area might be pursued and perfected.[37][38]

The Special Committee: Background and Publications[edit]

Growing public and congressional displeasure with President Richard Nixon’s exercise of his war powers and deepening U.S. involvement in hostilities in Vietnam prompted interest in a variety of related matters. For Senator Charles Mathias, interest in the question of emergency powers developed out of U.S. involvement in Vietnam and the incursion into Cambodia. Together with Senator Frank Church, he sought to establish a Senate special committee to study the implications of terminating the 1950 proclamation of national emergency that was being used to prosecute the Vietnam war, “to consider problems which might arise as the result of the termination and to consider what administrative or legislative actions might be necessary.”:[39]

Such a panel was initially chartered by S.Res. 304 as the Special Committee on the Termination of the National Emergency in June 1972, but did not begin operations before the end of the year.:[40]

With the convening of the 93rd Congress in 1973, the special committee was approved again with S.Res. 9.:[41]

Consequently, in 1974, with S.Res. 242, the study panel was rechartered as the Special Committee on National Emergencies and Delegated Emergency Powers.:[42]

Below is a list of publications issued by the special committee:[43]

U.S. Congress, Senate Special Committee on the Termination of the National Emergency, National Emergency, 3 parts, hearings, 93rd Cong., 1st sess., Apr. 11-12, July 24, and Nov. 28, 1973 (Washington: GPO, 1973)

U.S. Congress, Senate Special Committee on the Termination of the National Emergency, Emergency Powers Statutes, 93rd Cong., 1st sess., S.Rept. 93-549 (Washington: GPO, 1973)

U.S. Congress, Senate Special Committee on National Emergencies and Delegated Emergency Powers, A Brief History of Emergency Powers in the United States, committee print, 93rd Cong., 2nd sess. (Washington: GPO, 1974)

U.S. Congress, Senate Special Committee on National Emergencies and Delegated Emergency Powers, A Recommended National Emergencies Act, 93rd Cong., 2nd sess., S.Rept. 93-1170 (Washington: GPO, 1974)

U.S. Congress, Senate Special Committee on National Emergencies and Delegated Emergency Powers, Executive Orders in Times of War and National Emergency, committee print, 93rd Cong., 2nd sess. (Washington: GPO, 1974)

U.S. Congress, Senate Special Committee on National Emergencies and Delegated Emergency Powers, Executive Replies, 3 parts, committee print, 93rd Cong., 2nd sess. (Washington: GPO, 1974)

U.S. Congress, Senate Special Committee on National Emergencies and Delegated Emergency Powers, National Emergencies and Delegated Emergency Powers, 94th Cong., 2nd sess., S.Rept. 94-922 (Washington: GPO, 1976)

Members of the special committee at time of the publication of S. Report 93-549 were:[44]

Co-Chairmen:

Frank Church (D) Idaho and Charles Mathias (R) Maryland

Members:

Philip A. Hart (D) Michigan; Clifford P. Case (R) New Jersey;

Claiborne Pell (D) Rhode Island; James B. Pearson (R) Kansas;

Adlai E. Stevenson III (D) Illinois; and Clifford P. Hansen (R) Wyoming

Staff:

WILLIAM G. MILLER, Staff Director and THOMAS A. DINE, Professional Staff

[osan]

Money-shot beginning at 20:07.

[tommyrp12]

It should be interesting as to what a response ,if any, will be from Kerry. " You are occupied ,deal with it."

[presence]

You could also argue along the same lines that the whole southwest US is an occupation of upper Mexico since 1840's

[tommyrp12]

The plot thickens. You could be right, I am not too familiar with that situation but I think there was a treaty of peace in that instance. With Hawaii , I think it would be important to note that Lincoln had already used his assumed emergency powers to rule over the union of states, and since it never ended by the time Hawaii was annexed it could have been more to do with military rule being in effect, without a treaty.

Hawaii

The treaty was never ratified by the U.S. Senate. Instead, despite the opposition of a majority of Native Hawaiians,[73] the Newlands Resolution was used to annex the Republic to the United States and it became the Territory of Hawaii. The Newlands Resolution was passed by the House June 15, 1898, by a vote of 209 to 91, and by the Senate on July 6, 1898, by a vote of 42 to 21.

Newlands Resolution

The Newlands Resolution, was a joint resolution written by and named after United States Congressman Francis G. Newlands. It was an Act of Congress to annex the Republic of Hawaii and create the Territory of Hawaii.

In 1898 President of the United States William McKinley signed the treaty of annexation for Hawaii, but it failed in the Senate after the 38,000 signatures of the Kū’ē Petitions were submitted.[citation needed] After the failure, Hawaii was annexed by means of joint resolution, called the Newlands Resolution.

It was approved on July 4, 1898 and signed on July 7 by William McKinley. In August of the same year, a ceremony was held on the steps of Iolani Palace to signify the official transfer of Hawaiian sovereignty to the United States.

The Newlands Resolution established a five-member commission to study which laws were needed in Hawaii. The commission included: Territorial Governor Sanford B. Dole (R-Hawaii Territory), Senators Shelby M. Cullom (R-IL) and John T. Morgan (D-AL), Representative Robert R. Hitt (R-IL) and former Hawaii Chief Justice and later Territorial Governor Walter F. Frear (R-Hawaii Territory). The commission's final report was submitted to Congress for a debate which lasted over a year. Congress raised objections that establishing an elected territorial government in Hawaii would lead to the admission of a state with a non-white majority.

[osan]

It should be interesting as to what a response ,if any, will be from Kerry. " You are occupied ,deal with it."

I would assess anything other than silence as sheer folly. To respond in any way is to acknowledge the claim, even if one counters that it is not legitimate. Bad juju there for Themme.

One thing that bothers me about this, however, is the reliance on "international law", as if that were the last word in propriety. I have found often that such people cite "law" where it serves their purposes and presents a strident middle-finger to the same when it stands to interfere with their plans. Some call that "strategy". I call it "weaseling and wheedling" and I find it pretty despicable. OTOH, this is not my fight, but were it so I might see things differently.

[tommyrp12]

I would assess anything other than silence as sheer folly. To respond in any way is to acknowledge the claim, even if one counters that it is not legitimate. Bad juju there for Themme.

I don't think Kerry can remain silent on the issue.
I believe there is a maxim in law that states silence is acquiescence. So for Kerry to remain silent voluntarily would legitimize Hawaii's sovereignty. Its complicated to say the least.


Padelford, Fay & Co vs. The Mayor and Alderman of the City of Savannah

Silence gives consent, is the rule of business life. A tender of bank bills is as good as one of coin, unless the bills are objected to. To stand by, in silence, and see another sell your property, binds you. These are mere instances of the use of the maxim in the Municipal Law. In the Law of Nations, it is equally potent.Silent acquiescence in the breach of a treaty binds a Nation. (Vattel, ch.16,sec.199,book 1.See book 2,sec.142,et seq.as to usucaption and prescription, andsec.208 as to ratification.

Also of note in my previous post was that there was no treaty just a joint resolution without Hawaii's consent.

§ 199. How the right of the nation protected is lost by its silence.

But if the nation that is protected, or that has placed itself in subjection on certain conditions, does not resist the encroachments of that power from which it has sought support — if it makes no opposition to them — if it preserves a profound silence, when it might and ought to speak — its patient acquiescence becomes in length of time a tacit consent that legitimates the rights of the usurper. There would be no stabiliity in the affairs of men, and especially in those of nations, if long possession, accompanied by the silence of the persons concerned, did not produce a degree of right. But it must be observed, that silence, in order to show tacit consent, ought to be voluntary. If the inferior nation proves that violence and fear prevented its giving testimonies of its opposition, nothing can be concluded from its silence, which therefore gives no right to the usurper.

[osan]

I don't think Kerry can remain silent on the issue.
I believe there is a maxim in law that states silence is acquiescence.

To my limited knowledge, that is in positive law and canonical law. I am not sure about common law, or statutory law, and am not quite sure where that would leave things.

So for Kerry to remain silent voluntarily would legitimize Hawaii's sovereignty. Its complicated to say the least.

Seems plausible, but Theye are not interested in legalities when statute is not on their side. Law means nothing to them where their accountability is concerned. They only kowtow when it serves their purposes... like annexing lands against indigenous wishes.

ETA: Note how this accords with the Fifth Amendment - not very well, it would seem.

[tommyrp12]

To my limited knowledge, that is in positive law and canonical law. I am not sure about common law, or statutory law, and am not quite sure where that would leave things.



Seems plausible, but Theye are not interested in legalities when statute is not on their side. Law means nothing to them where their accountability is concerned. They only kowtow when it serves their purposes... like annexing lands against indigenous wishes.

ETA: Note how this accords with the Fifth Amendment - not very well, it would seem.

That is true they are a lawless bunch, internationally or at home.

Since you will be in Honolulu, August 13, 2014, I ask whether you would be willing to meet with the Hawaiian community. The purpose of this meeting would be to clarify a legal issue of foreign relations that has become of critical importance to all in Hawaii these past months.

I eagerly await august 14th. I hope whatever transpires will be recorded and distributed online so everyone else can get a clearer picture as well. Whatever I find I will post here.