12 thoughts on “ABC Radio Australia: Could the U.S. be Guilty of Committing War Crimes in Hawai‘i?

  1. As we move closer and closer towards de-occupation, there is this nagging question, “What next?” I can’t help but feel that the transition may be the bumpiest part of this, if we are not prepared.
    Between 1778 and 1893 A LOT of stuff was occurring. So much that, it is quite amazing that our kupuna were able to compose themselves enough to provide us with what we have today.
    You have a stone age people meeting the modern world, you have people who did not use currency going into debt, you had people that believed they were descended from people who came from the heavens when just about every civilization with similar beliefs was eradicated or conquered, you have a massive “die off” or decrease in the population, you have religious beliefs removed and replaced, cultural practices and beliefs disappearing and more. In my opinion, each of these events could be considered a traumatic event affecting ones thinking and decision making.
    Maybe now is not the time to address these issues and events? Maybe the focus should be on restoring our nation, so that we can regain control of the land, resources and our future. With that being said I think we would be at a severe disadvantage if we did not contemplate the above referenced events in conjunction ideas of how our nation will reemerge.

    Dr. Sai recommends the use of a Doctrine of Necessity in order to bring Hawaiian Law into the 21st Century, utilizing existing US laws so long as they do not conflict with Hawaiian Kingdom Law. In understanding our TRUE history and American history I have questions regarding existing US Law and our current existence. Our kupuna took a lot of Western concepts and added a “Hawaiian” twist. I believe this is where Kaleikoa Kaeo’s mana’o comes into play and becomes very relevant.
    I guess my concern is the “Hawaiian” twist. In utilizing a Doctrine of Necessity my question is, “Has there been an exhaustive analysis of today’s existence, in comparison to Hawaiian Kingdom Law, Constitution including the “Hawaiian” twist It may be that the academics, in analyzing the archival records, are still determining what those concepts and ideologies are that make up the “Hawaiian” twist. ?” I have faith that the Acting Hawaiian Kingdom Government is already looking into this.

    Here are some of the areas of my concern and questions:
    Envirornment and Health
    There are departments of the Federal Government of the US responsible for protecting the well being of the environment and it’s citizens, FDA, EPA and HHS. I believe there is enough evidence to conclude that some of their policies have been manipulated by corporate interest potentially causing harm to individuals and the environment. Whether it is approving the use of chemicals in the environment or food products, or denying alternative means of treating chronic degenerative diseases such as cancer, “Would their policies be implemented under the Doctrine of Necessity, if so would the have a “Hawaiian” twist?”

    Law
    Of course the Hawaiian Government has legal precedent established through court cases, but have they been analyzed, to determine legitimacy. At a certain point in our history, it seems that the insurgents become very brazen in their exertion of power and influence. Do any of the court ruling reflect this?

    Does the legal structure of a Constitutional Monarchy(Hawaiian Kingdom) differ from a Democratic Republic(US)? If so, how does that affect the implementation of the Doctrine of Necessity?

    As we move further into the de-occupation process, how will contributions to elections be handled. Many have voiced concerns over the current policies in the US, prompting people to seek campaign finance reform. How will the Doctrine of Necessity affect the elections process?

    A lot of my concerns might be answered by understanding the 1864 Hawaiian Kingdom Constitution and the Compiled Laws of 1886.

    There is so much to ponder and consider that it can be overwhelming.
    The intention of this post is preparation. Great things happen when opportunity meets preparation. We are on the brink of something great. As a nation, let’s be prepared.

  2. Aloha Tim, very good questions and legitimate concerns. I believe the Doctorine of necessity is a tool and we have to understand how it works inorder to use it to our benefit. It is only temporary and limited in it’s application in order to keep things afloat until we implement laws that better address our concerns utilizing that hawaiian twist. Being educated on the issues is a big part on being prepared to provide the best answers which will produce the best results.

    • That has a constitutional amendment written all over it, Kolonahe! That is exactly what I’m talking about.

      Always sound advice, Kekoa. Education!
      Mahalo.

      • Did the Hawaiian Kingdom recognize corporations as people? Isnt the whole people=corporation thing a recent construction within the last few decades?

        • I could be wrong but I believe corporations use the First Amendment of the US Constituion to their defense, “..the right of the people to peacably assemble..” They claim they are a group of people peaceably assembled to make profits.

          US Constitution
          Bill of Rights -Article 1
          Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

          1864 Hawaiian Constitution
          ARTICLE 4.
          All men shall have the right, in an orderly and peaceable manner, to assemble, without arms, to consult upon the common good, and to petition the King or Legislative Assembly for redress of grievances.

          Please note the “Hawaiian” twist: “…to assemble, without arms, to consult upon the common good..”
          Maybe no need a constitutional amendment to challenge the concept, “corporations are people.” Article 4 looks like it would take care of that. Corporations are serving their shareholders only, not all citizens/ subjects.
          Could it be possible that our kupuna saw a problem with the right for people to assemble, but no problem if they were assembling for the common good? I think they were that akamai.

          Mahalo Kolonahe. To me, this starts to paint a picture of what the Hawaiian Kingdom would look like from a legal perspective.
          When talking about de-occupation, it is one of the biggest questions by Kanaka and non-Kanaka. What would the Hawaiian Kingdom look like?

          • I think one of the important things that we need to remember is that our people were ‘ohana based. We believe that the land is apart of that ‘ohana so should it not make sense that if something is hurting us as well as the aina that it isnt for the common good? We have been taught to be individualistic which somewhat goes against our kupuna’s way… but all of this is just conjecture. I am by no means an expert on these sort of things.

  3. Aloha Tim, I don’t think Article 4 of the HK constitution has anything to do with corporations. It is for the people, wether subjects of the Kingdom or foreigners. Where it says all men which in the plural includes women, it is talking about real flesh and blood people. Not legal fictions.

    The HK recognizes corporations and you will find it under Title 6 Chapter XXXI.

    Maybe the officers or the employees as individuals can claim their rights to Article 4 but not the corp. it’s self.

    A corp. is a legal fiction, a creation by men using law to create this legal fiction to benefit it’s creator. A corp. can only speak through representative(s) such as it’s officer(s) or attorney(s). The law will recognize it as a legal person (fiction)but it can only speak through it’s representative(s) as stated above.
    Hope this helps.

    • Thank you for clarifying, Kekoa. I was speaking to the concept that ” corporations are people” and the origin of that concept. It interpretation was based on people, who have rights, are assembling, peaceably for profit. I accept that my interpretation could be wrong. I cannot provide a reference to a legal case that establishes corporations as having the same rights as an individual. I probably should not have gone down that road, without researching the issue and providing references.

      • Aloha Tim,
        Please see U.S. Supreme Court ruling “Hale vs Henkel, 201 U.S. 43 at 47 (1905).” This case has been cited over 1400 times.
        Mahalo,
        Bill

  4. Aloha Tim, thanks for clarifying the concept. It’s all good discussion. My take on Article 4 of the HK constitution states that there are 2 specific reasons for the right to assemble and the manner in which the assembly should take place. “All men shall have the right, in an orderly and peaceable manner, to assemble, without arms, to consult upon the common good, and to petition the King or Legislative Assembly for redress of grievances.

    If you take a look at Articles 1 through 5 it references the term “men” which actually includes women because it speaks to the population regardless of gender. That term “men” does not include corporations.
    Take a closer look at Article 1 “God hath endowed all men with certain inalienable rights; among which are life, liberty, and the right of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and of pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness.
    This can only be applied to a living person with a soul since God the creator was the one who created men and endowed him with the rights mentioned above. Corporations are not creations of God and are not endowed with these rights. Corporations are creations of men and have no souls. The can have only what men gives them by way of a corporate charter. Hense the term corporation refers to the word corps, a body with no life or soul.
    Anyway, that’s my take on it, for whatever it’s worth.

    • Ahhh, we are talking about two different things. I was referring to our current situation, under the US Constitution, not the Hawaiian Constitution.
      I think your comments support what I was trying to convey.
      Thanks for the analysis of Hawaiian Constitution articles. We need more of these types of discussions.

Leave a Reply to Bill Cancel reply