State of Hawai‘i Attorney General Anne Lopez is not only the chief law enforcement officer but is also a legal advisor to the Governor, Heads of the Departments, and to the individual members of the Senate and House of Representatives.

Hawai‘i Revised Statutes §28-3 states “The attorney general shall, when requested, give opinions upon questions of law submitted by the governor, the legislature, or its members, or the head of any department.” According to this State of Hawai‘i law, the Attorney General cannot refuse to give a legal opinion when a member of the legislature requests it. Senator Crabbe’s question he posed to the Attorney General is:

Considering the two legal opinions by Professor Craven and Professor Lenzerini, that conclude the Hawaiian Kingdom continues to exist as a State under international law, which are enclosed with this request, is the State of Hawai‘i within the territory of the United States or is it within the territory of the Hawaiian Kingdom?

According to the National Association of Attorneys General:

Formal written legal opinions of the attorney general answer questions of law from state agencies or officials about the agency’s or official’s legal duties. Commonly known as attorney general opinions, these opinions are prepared by and reviewed by attorneys in the office, including the attorney general, through an established process and have the authority of the office behind them.

In Senator Crabbe’s letter, he specifically quotes from the legal opinions by two professors of international law. Senator Crabbe wrote:

In his legal opinion, Professor Craven states, under international law, there is a presumption that the Hawaiian Kingdom continues to exist, unless there can be referenced, “a valid demonstration of legal title, or sovereignty, on the part of the United States, absent of which the presumption remains.” And Professor Lenzerini states, in his legal opinion, “The conclusion according to which the Hawaiian Kingdom cannot be considered as having been extinguished—as a State—as a result of the American occupation also allows to confirm, de plano, that the Hawaiian Kingdom, as an independent State, has been under uninterrupted belligerent occupation by the United States of America, from 17 January 1893 up to the moment of this writing.”

From a legal standpoint, this is significant because it sets the foundation for the legal opinion as to why the State of Hawai‘i, being a creation of American law, cannot simultaneously exist with the Hawaiian Kingdom in its own territory. This places the Attorney General in an untenable position where she has to show that there is no presumption of continuity of a State under international law and that belligerent occupation does extinguish an occupied State. This is something that she is unable to do.

Being a State within a federation, the Attorney General is also bound by the U.S. Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel’s 1988  legal opinion regarding the annexation of the Hawaiian Islands in 1898 by a congressional law. She cannot counter the conclusion by this federal legal opinion. The opinion is not what you would expect from the federal government on Hawai‘i. The legal opinion was advising the State Department on the legal issues raised by a proposed Presidential proclamation to extend the territorial sea from three miles off the coast of the United States to twelve miles. In that legal opinion, Acting Assistant Attorney General Douglas W. Kmiec concluded:

The President has the authority to issue a proclamation extending the jurisdiction of the United States over the territorial sea from three to twelve miles out.

The President also has the authority to assert the United States’s sovereignty over the extended territorial sea, although most such claims in the nation’s have been executed by treaty.

There is serious question whether Congress has the authority either to assert over an expanded territorial sea for purposes of international law or assert the United States’s sovereignty over it.

It is therefore unclear which constitutional power Congress exercised when it acquired Hawaii by joint resolution. Accordingly it is doubtful that the acquisition of Hawaii can serve as an appropriate precedent for a congressional assertion of sovereignty over an extended territorial sea.

In support of this conclusion, Acting Assistant Attorney General Kmiec relied on statements made in 1898 by members of the Congress, and the writings of constitutional scholar Professor Westel Willoughby who stated:

The constitutionality of the annexation of Hawaii, by a simple legislative act, was strenuously contested at the time both in Congress and by the press. The right to annex by treaty was not denied, but it was denied that this might be done by a simple legislative act. … Only by means of treaties, it was asserted, can the relations between States be governed, for a legislative act is necessarily without extraterritorial force—confined in its operation to the territory of the State by whose legislature it is enacted.

If it is unclear how Congress could annex foreign territory by legislative action, it would be equally unclear how Congress could establish the State of Hawai‘i by legislative action in 1959. Without a treaty, all American laws, which includes the Hawai‘i Statehood Act of 1959, imposed in the Hawaiian Kingdom constitutes the war crime of usurpation of sovereignty during military occupation.

More importantly, time is not on the side of the Attorney General to delay her legal opinion because she is up against the presumption, under international law, that the Hawaiian Kingdom continues to exist, which consequently means that the State of Hawai‘i does not lawfully exist. As the proverb goes, you can’t have your cake and eat it too, which is you cannot have two things at the same time if they are mutually exclusive. In other words, the Hawaiian Kingdom and the State of Hawai‘i cannot exist at the same time. The existence of one cancels the other.

In light of the overwhelming evidence and law on the side of the Hawaiian Kingdom, her legal opinion will have to conclude that the State of Hawai‘i is not within the territory of the United States, but rather within the territory of the Hawaiian Kingdom. Her silence before her legal opinion is released already takes this position in law.

The Attorney General is in an inescapable legal bind. Her silence is the admission that the Hawaiian Kingdom is an occupied State and that the State of Hawai‘i is unlawful. Her silence on this matter should cause concern for the Governor, the Heads of the Departments, and individual members of the Senate and House of Representatives and their implication of committing war crimes. As Senator Crabbe concluded his letter with, “Given the severity of this request and that I may be implicated in war crimes for enacting legislation, your earnest attention to this matter will be greatly appreciated.”

CLARIFICATION ON THE LAW-MAKING POWER OF THE UNITED STATES. There are three types of laws that the United States is empowered to create—international law, statutory law, and the common law. Within the territory of the United States, the Congress has plenary power to create statutory laws that is applied throughout the United States. But where the Congress has not made a law, the Supreme Court can make decisions that fill the void, which is called common law. A case in point is Roe v. Wade that made abortions legal, but it was later overturned by the Supreme Court in 2022. This change in its decision on abortion by the Supreme Court can be overturned by the Congress if it enacts a law reinstating what Roe v. Wade provided in a statute.

The statutory law and the common law are restricted in operation to only apply over the territory of the United States and not beyond. Of the three branches of the U.S. Government—the legislative, the executive, and the judicial, only the executive branch can exercise its authority outside of U.S. territory through the Department of State and the Department of Defense. In United States v. Curtiss-Wright Corporation (1936), U.S. Supreme Court explained:

Not only, as we have shown, is the federal power over external affairs in origin and essential character different from that over internal affairs, but participation in the exercise of the power is significantly limited. In this vast external realm, with its important, complicated, delicate and manifold problems, the President alone has the power to speak or listen as a representative of the nation. He makes treaties with the advice and consent of the Senate; but he alone negotiates. Into the field of negotiation the Senate cannot intrude, and Congress itself is powerless to invade it. 

The sources of international law are customary law, treaties, general principles of law, judicial decisions, and scholarly articles written by experts in international law. The two legal opinions by Professor Craven and Professor Lenzerini, as scholars in international law, are considered a source of international law.

On the subject of the limits of the Congress to enact laws, whether commercial laws or not, the U.S. Supreme Court, in the Curtiss-Wright case, also stated:

Neither the Constitution nor the laws passed in pursuance of it have any force in foreign territory unless in respect of our own citizens, and operations of the nation in such territory must be governed by treaties, international understandings and compacts, and the principles of international law.

So, the Attorney General will have to find a treaty of cession, whereby the Hawaiian Kingdom entered into negotiations with a President to cede its territory and sovereignty over the Hawaiian Islands to the United States. There exists no such treaty, except for American laws and common laws being unlawful imposed within the territory of the Hawaiian Kingdom.