The government of the Hawaiian Kingdom is a constitutional and limited monarchy comprised of three Estates: the Monarch, Nobles and the People. An Estate is defined as a “political class.” All three political classes work in concert and provides for the legal basis of the government and its authority. Article 45 of the 1864 Hawaiian constitution, provides: “The Legislative power of the Three Estates of this Kingdom is vested in the King, and the Legislative Assembly; which Assembly shall consist of the Nobles appointed by the King, and of the Representatives of the People, sitting together.”
This provision is further elaborated under §768, Hawaiian Civil Code (Compiled Laws, 1884), “The Legislative Department of this Kingdom is composed of the King, the House of Nobles, and the House of Representatives, each of whom has a negative on the other, and in whom is vested full power to make all manner of wholesome laws, as they shall judge for the welfare of the nation, and for the necessary support and defense of good government, provided the same is not repugnant or contrary to the Constitution.” As each Estate has a negative on each other, no law can be passed without all three Estates agreeing.
According to Hawaiian law “No person shall ever sit upon the Throne, who has been convicted of any infamous crime, or who is insane, or an idiot (Article 25, 1864 Constitution),” which, by extension, extends to the Nobles whereby “The King appoints the members of the House of Nobles, who hold their seats during life, unless in case of resignation, subject, however, to punishment for disorderly behavior. The number of members of the House of Nobles shall not exceed thirty (§771, Compiled Laws).”
Representatives of the People shall be Hawaiian subjects or denizens “who shall have arrived at the full age of twenty-five years, who shall know how to read and write; who shall understand accounts, and who shall have resided in the Kingdom for at least one year immediately preceding his election; provided always, that no person who is insane, or an idiot, or who shall at any time have been convicted of theft, bribery, perjury, forgery, embezzlement, polygamy, or other high crime or misdemeanor, shall ever hold seat as Representative of the people (§778, Compiled Laws).”
The number of the Representatives of the people in the Legislature shall be twenty-eight: eight for the Island of Hawai‘i (one for the district of North Kona, one for the district of South Kona, One for the district of Ka‘u, one for the district Puna, two for the district of Hilo, one for the district Hamakua, one for the district of Kohala); seven for the Island of Maui (two for the districts of Lahaina, Olowalu, Ukumehame, and Kaho‘olawe, one for the districts of Kahakuloa and Ka‘anapali, one for the districts of Waihe‘e and Honuaula, one for the districts of Kahikinui and Ko‘olau, one for the districts of Hamakualoa and Kula); two for the Islands of Molokai and Lanai; eight for the Island of O‘ahu (four for the districts of Honolulu that extends from Maunalua to Moanalua, one for the districts of Ewa and Waianae, one for the district of Waialua, one for the district of Ko‘olauloa, and one for the district of Ko‘olaupoko); and three for the island of Kaua‘i (one for the districts of Waimea, Nualolo, Hanapepe and the Island of Ni‘ihau, one for the districts of Puna, Wahiawa and Wailua, and one for the districts of Hanalei, Kapa‘a and ‘Awa‘awapuhi) (§780, Compiled Laws).
Electors of the Representatives shall be Hawaiian subjects or denizens “who shall have paid his taxes, who shall have attained the age of twenty years, and shall have been domiciled in the Kingdom for one year immediately preceding the election, and shall know how to read and write, if born since the year 1840, and shall have caused his name to be entered on the list of voters of his district…shall be entitled to one vote for Representative or Representatives of that district; provided, however, that no insane or idiotic person, or any person who shall have been convicted of any infamous crime within this Kingdom unless he shall have been pardoned by the King, and by the terms, and by the terms of such pardon have been restored to all the rights of a subject, shall be allowed to vote (p. 222, Compiled Laws).”
The Estate of the Crown
The first constitution of the Hawaiian Kingdom was promulgated in 1840 by King Kamehameha III, which was superseded by the 1852 Constitution. Article 25 of the 1852 Constitution provided: “The crown is hereby permanently confirmed to His Majesty Kamehameha III. during his life, and to his successor. The successor shall be the person whom the King and the House of Nobles shall appoint and publicly 
proclaim as such, during the King’s life; but should there be no such appointment and proclamation, then the successor shall be chosen by the House of Nobles and the House of Representatives in joint ballot.” Kamehameha III proclaimed his adopted son, Alexander Liholiho, to be his heir apparent after receiving confirmation from the Nobles in 1853. Alexander ascended to the Throne upon the death of King Kamehameha III on December 15, 1854.
King Kamehameha V ascended to the Throne through the process of appointment by the Premier (Kuhina Nui) Victoria Kamamalu, and confirmation by the Nobles in 1863, because Kamehameha IV had no surviving children. His son and heir, Prince Albert Kamehameha, died at the age of four 
on August 27, 1862. Since the young Prince’s death, Kamehameha IV did not appoint a successor before he died on November 30, 1863. According to the 1852 Constitution, Article 47 provided, “Whenever the throne shall become vacant by reason of the King’s death…the Kuhina Nui, for the time being, shall…perform all the duties incumbent on the King, and shall have and exercise all the powers, which by this Constitution are vested in the King.”
In 1864, a new constitution was promulgated by King Kamehameha V, and Article 22 of the 1864 Constitution provides that, “The Crown is hereby permanently confirmed to His Majesty Kamehameha V. and to the Heirs of His body lawfully begotten, and to their lawful Descendants in a direct line; failing whom, the Crown shall descend to Her Royal Highness the Princess Victoria Kamamalu Kaahumanu, and the heirs of her body, lawfully begotten, and their lawful descendants in a direct line. The Succession shall be to the senior male child, and to the heirs of his body; failing a male child, the succession shall be to the senior female child, and to the heirs of her body.” Princess Kamamalu died on May 29, 1866 without any lineal descendants, leaving the successors to the Throne solely with King Kamehameha V.
Since Kamehameha V had no children, Article 22 of the 1864 Constitution provides that a “successor shall be the person whom the Sovereign shall appoint with the consent of the Nobles, and publicly proclaim as such during the King’s life; but should there be no such appointment and proclamation, and the Throne should become vacant, then the Cabinet Council, immediately after the occurring of such vacancy, shall cause a meeting of the Legislative Assembly, who shall elect by ballot some native Ali‘i of the Kingdom as Successor to the Throne.” The Cabinet Council replaced the function of the Premier (Kuhina Nui) under the former constitution, whose office was repealed by the 1864 Constitution, and according to Article 33 would serve as a Council of Regency.
On December 11, 1872, Kamehameha V died without children and he did not appoint a successor. Kamehameha V’s Cabinet, as a Council of Regency, convened the Legislative Assembly in special session on January 8, 1873. A regent is a person or persons who serve in the absence of a monarch. In their speech to the Legislature, the Council stated:
“His late Majesty did not appoint any successor in the mode set forth in the Constitution, with the consent of the Nobles or make Proclamation thereof during his life. There having been no such appointment or Proclamation, the Throne became vacant, and the Cabinet Council immediately thereupon considered the form of the Constitution in such case made and provided, and Ordered—That a meeting of the Legislative Assembly be caused to be holden at the Court House in Honolulu, on Wednesday which will be the eighth day of January, A.D. 1873, at 12 o’clock noon; and of this order all Members of the Legislative Assembly will take notice and govern themselves accordingly. By virtue of this Order you have been assembled, to elect by ballot, some native Ali‘i of this Kingdom as Successor to the Throne. Your present authority is limited to this duty, but the newly elected Sovereign may require your services after his accession.”
On that day the Legislature elected Lunalilo as King. From December 11, 1872 to January 8, 1873, the Kingdom was headed by a Council of Regency. Article 33 of the 1864 Constitution provides that “the Cabinet Council at the time of such decease shall be a Council of Regency…who shall administer the Government in the name of the King, and exercise all the Powers which are Constitutionally vested in the King.”
The Legislative Assembly convened again in special session on February 12, 1874 and elected King Kalakaua after Lunalilo, who died without children, failed to appoint a successor. Upon ascension to the Throne, King Kalakaua appointed his brother Prince William Pitt Leleiohoku as his heir apparent and received confirmation from the Nobles. Leleiohoku died April 10, 1877, which prompted 
Kalakaua to immediately appoint his sister on the same day, Princess Lili‘uokalani, as his heir apparent and he received confirmation from the Nobles. An heir apparent is a person who is first in line of succession to the Throne according to Hawaiian law and cannot be displaced. An heir presumptive, however, is the person, male or female, entitled to succeed to the Throne, but can be replaced by an heir apparent pronounced according to Hawaiian law.
When the Legislative Assembly elected King Kalakaua in 1874, a new Stirps had effectively replaced the former Stirps, being the Kamehameha dynasty, with the Keawe-a-Heulu dynasty. Although Lunalilo was an elected King, he was of the Kamehameha dynasty, through Kamehameha’s father, Keoua. Stirps is a direct “line descending from a common ancestor,” and applies to monarchical dynasties. The Stirps for the Kamehameha Dynasty was a direct line from Kamehameha with Keopuolani, being the highest ranking of his wives. Lunalilo was not a direct descendant of Kamehameha, but a direct descendant of Kamehameha’s father, Keoua, whose son, Kalaimamahu, was Kamehameha’s half-brother.
Keawe-a-Heulu was one of the four counselor chiefs to Kamehameha I when the 
islands were consolidated under one kingdom. The other three counselor chiefs were Ke‘eaumoku, Kamanawa and Kame‘eiamoku. Ke‘eaumoku was the father of Ka‘ahumanu, one of Kamehameha’s wives and who later served as Prime Minister after Kamehameha’s death in 1819. Kamanawa and Kame‘eiamoku were brothers and are also represented in the Hawaiian Kingdom’s coat of arms.
The Kamehameha dynasty also included the descendants of Kamehameha’s other wives, other than Keopuolani who was the mother of Kamehameha II and III, and the young Princess Nahienaena. These wives and children included: Peleuli who had Maheha Kapulikoliko, Kahoanoku Kina‘u, Kaiko‘olani and Kiliwehi; Kaheiheimalie who had Kamamalu and Kina‘u, who was the mother of Kamehameha IV and V, and Premier Victoria Kamamalu.
In 1883, the Keawe-a-Heulu Stirps was formally declared at the Coronation of King Kalakaua and Queen Kapi‘olani. Princess Lili‘uokalani as the heir apparent, and the heirs presumptive, being Princess Virginia Kapo‘oloku Po‘omaikelani, Princess Kinoiki, Princess Victoria Kawekiu Kai‘ulani Lunalilo Kalaninuiahilapalapa, Prince David Kawananakoa, Prince Edward Abnel Keli‘iahonui, and Prince Jonah Kuhio Kalaniana‘ole comprised the new royal lineage.
Queen Lili‘uokalani appointed Princess Ka‘iulani as her heir apparent in 1891, but was unable to get confirmation by the Nobles because they were prevented from entering the Legislative Assembly as a result of the so-called 1887 bayonet constitution that began the insurgency. In 1917, Queen Lili‘uokalani died with no such appointment or Proclamation leaving the Throne vacant. After the Queen’s death, only Prince Kuhio was left of the heirs presumptive. All the rest had died. Of the heirs presumptive, only Prince David Kawananakoa died with lineal descendants, but these lineal descendants did not inherit the title of heirs presumptive because they were not proclaimed as such by a reigning Monarch, as King Kalakaua did by proclamation in 1883. While these lineal descendants have no claim to the Throne, they are part of the Estate of the Ali‘i (Chiefs).
Currently, there are pretenders to the Estate of the Crown that have claimed to be Kings, Princes or Princesses. Some claims are well known, while others are not, but all claims to the Throne have no basis in Hawaiian law because Her late Majesty Queen Lili‘uokalani did not appoint and thereafter proclaim her successor in accordance with the law as it was done in the past. The titles of Prince and Princess are not hereditary titles, but have a direct correlation to the reigning Monarch, as either being an heir apparent or heirs presumptive. In other words, an individual cannot claim to be a prince or princess without a sitting Monarch for the realm.
The Estate of Nobles (Chiefs)
The political class of Ali‘i is an integral component of the Hawaiian Kingdom and its government and has its origin deeply rooted in Polynesian society. The entire land system of the Kingdom that continues to exist today is grounded and based on actions taken by the Ali‘i such as the granting of Royal Patents, Land Commission Awards, and the Great Land Division (Mahele) between the Government and Chiefs, which also set the terms of division between both the Government and Chiefs and native tenants desiring to get a fee-simple title to their lands.
On August 9, 1880, the Hawaiian Legislature enacted “An Act to Perpetuate the Genealogy of the Chiefs of Hawaii.”
According to the Rules of the Board, their principle duties are: “1. To gather, revise, correct and record the Genealogy of Chiefs. 2. To gather, revise, correct and record all published and unpublished Ancient Hawaiian History. 3. To gather, revise, correct and record all published and unpublished Meles (Songs), and also to ascertain the object and the spirit of the Meles, the age and the History of the period when composed and to note the same on the Record Book. 4. To record all the tabu customs of the Mois (Kings) and Chiefs.”
In its Report in 1884, the Board stated it was examining copies of genealogical books by Kamokuiki, Kaoo, Kaunahi, Unauna, Hakaleleponi, Piianaia, Kalaualu and David Malo, and that the “Board has not entered into revision of these books and those written by foreign historians as the time has been taken up mostly in attesting the genealogy of those that have applied to have their genealogy established.” The Board also reported, that it “has avoided entering into controversies with the genealogical discussions that have been going on for a year or more in the local Hawaiian newspapers, as these discussions have been more or less conducted in a partisan spirit instead of on scientific principles. They loose the merit of usefulness by the hostilities assumed by the contending writers.”
On July 5, 1887, the newly appointed Cabinet Council and two members of the Supreme Court committed the high crime of treason by coercing King Kalakaua to sign a new constitution under threat of assassination. This so-called constitution came to be known as the Bayonet Constitution and was never submitted to the Legislative Assembly for approval, which is required under law. Hawaiian constitutional law provides that any proposed change to the constitution must be submitted to the Legislative Assembly, and upon majority agreement, would be deferred to the next legislative session for action. Once the next legislature convened, and the proposed amendment or amendments were “agreed to by two-thirds of all members of the Legislative Assembly, and be approved by the King, such amendment or amendments shall become part of the Constitution of this country (Article 80, 1864 Constitution).”
This so-called constitution was drafted by a select group of twenty individuals and effectively placed control of the Legislature and Cabinet in the hands of individuals who held foreign allegiances, which led to the illegal overthrow of the Hawaiian government by the United States of America. The leader of this insurgency, Lorrin Thruston, was the Minister of the Interior, and he refused to fund the Board of Genealogists 
as required by law. In a letter to Her Royal Highness Princess Po‘omaikelani, President of the Genealogical Board, dated July 29, 1887, Thurston writes, “I beg to acknowledge receipt of your communication of the 27th inst. in which you state the labors of the board need not be suspended because the appropriation cannot be paid. There can, of course, be no objection to a continuation of the work of the Board of Genealogy so long as it is carried out without expense to the Government.”
Despite the lack of government funding and the illegal overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom government, the Board continued their work to compile the genealogies of Hawaiian Chiefs (Mo‘okua‘auhau Ali‘i) that were eventually published in the Ka Maka‘ainana newspaper in the year 1896.
The acting Government is providing these publications, which are in the Hawaiian language, to the public at large with a link to the original publication in PDF by date of the publication. The names of Hawaiian Chiefs below are printed as they are written in the published genealogies, which did not have any diacritical markers such as the ‘okina or kahako. The English translations of these publications can be drawn from Edith Kawelohea McKinzie and Ishmael W. Stagner, II, Hawaiian Genealogies, vol. 1. A basic glossary of terms that can be used to understand the published genealogies are:
“k” is short for kane (male)
“w” is short for wahine (female)
noho (to live with, but used to mean the same as marriage)
mare (married)
a‘ohe pua (no lineal descendants)
kuamo‘o (lineage)
kuauhau (genealogy)
loa‘a (had)
mo‘o kuauhau (genealogical succession)
June 1, 1896—Genealogies of King Kamehameha IV and King Lunalilo, both of whom died without lineal descendants.
June 8, 1896—Genealogies of King Kalakaua and Queen Liliuokalani, both of whom died without lineal descendants.
June 15, 1896—Genealogy of Princess Kaiulani, who died without lineal descendants.
June 29, 1896—Genealogies of Queen Kapiolani, who died without lineal descendants; Prince Jonah Kuhio Kalanianaole who died without lineal descendants; and David Kawananakoa.
July 6, 1896—Genealogies of William Piikoi Wond, Lydia Kamakee Cummins, and Maraea Cummins; Daisy Napulahaokalani, Eva Kuwailanimamao, Roberto Kalaninuikupuaikalaninui Keoua and Virginia Kahoa Kaahumanu Kaihikapumahana.
July 13, 1896—Genealogy of Albert Kekukailimoku Kunuiakea who died without lineal descendants.
July 20, 1896—Genealogies of Princess Bernice Pauahi who dies without lineal descendants, Princess Ruth Keelikolani who died without lineal descendants, and John Kamehamehanui who died without lineal descendants.
July 27, 1896—Genealogies of Alexandrina Leihulu Kapena who died without lineal descendants, Edward Kamakau Lilikalani, and Annie Palekaluhi Kaikioewa who died without lineal descendants.
August 3, 1896—Genealogies of Sabina Kahinu Beckley, Frederick Kahapula Beckley, Jr., and Frederica Beckley; Leander Kaonowailani, Violet Kahaleluhi Kinoole, Grace Namahana i Kaleleokalani, Frederick Malulani, George Heaalii and Benjamin Kameeiamoku; William Kauluheimalama Beckley, Henry Hoolulu Beckley, Juanita Beckley, and George Mooheau Beckley, Jr.; Henry Hoolulu Pitman, Mary Kinoole (Mrs. Mary Ailau), and Benjamin Pitman, Jr.; Robert Hoapili Baker, Henry Kanuha, and Rev. J. Kauhane of Kau.
August 10, 1896—Genealogies of William Hoapili Kaauwai, Jr., Luka Kaauwai and Lydia Kahanu Kaauwai; Mary Parker (Mrs. Maguire), Eva Kalanikauleleiaiwi Kahiluonapuaonahonoapiilani Parker, Helen Umiokalani Parker, John Palmer Parker, Hattie Kaonohilani Parker, Palmer Kuihelani Parker, Samuel Keaoililani Parker, Ernest Napela Parker, and James Kekookalani Parker.
August 17, 1896—Genealogies of Lydia Kamakanoe Kanehoa, Albert Kaleinoanoa Kanehoa, Jno Kupakee Kanehoa, Davida K. Hoapili Kanehoa, and Maria Kalehuaikawekiu Kanehoa; Hoapiliwahine-a-Kanehoa; and the children of Makainai-a-Kuakini and Kauina, being Jesse Makainai, Keeaumoku, Kapaleiliahi, Kaumaumaeha, Hoapili Liilii, and Paulo Hoapili; Henry St. John Kaleookekoi Nahaolelua, George William Lua Nahaolelua, John Vivian St. John Kapokini Nahaolelua, Charles Kalaninoheainamoku Nahaolelua, Albert Kamainiualani Nahaolelua, Alexander Pahukula Kuanamoa Nahaolelua, Elizabeth Alice Kalakini Nahaolelua, and Emma Rhoda Kaaiohelo Nahaolelua; William Kapahukula Enelani Stevens who died without lineal descendants, and Keliikui Stevens who also died with lineal descendants.
August 24, 1896—Genealogies of Rose Kekupuohi Simerson, William Kuakini Simerson and Isaac Kaleialii Simerson; and the children of Annie Niulii and Kahaleaahu, being Helen Kalolowahilani, John Paalua and David Kauluhaimalama.
August 31, 1896—Genealogies of Annie Thelma Kahiluonapuaonahonoapiilani Parker; Kahaule-o-Kuakini and Mrs. Maluhi Reis; John Meek, Jr.; and Maraea Kaoaopa died without lineal descendants.
September 7, 1896—Genealogies of Adele Mikahala Unauna, John Koii Unauna, Maraea Kapumakokoulaokalani Unauna, Kaniu Unauna, Kahelemanolani Unauna, Jane Kulokuloku Unauna, Hattie Kaauamookalani Unauna and James Kalimaila Unauna; Julia Kailimahuna Koii, Lydia Kahuakai Koii, Lydia Kahuakai Koii, David Koii who died without lineal descendants, and Esther Namahana Koii; Julia Kapakuialii Kalaninuipoaimoku Doiron and Moses Koii Luhaukapewa Doiron; William Kahoapili Kekohimoku Alohikea, Alfred Unauna Alohikea, David Kauahiaalaiwilani Kaili; Alexander Boki Reis, Palmyra Lonokahikini Reis, and Helen Kekumualii Reis; and Helina Kaiwaokalani Maikai, David Unualoha Maikai, Samuela Kahilolaamea Maikai, and Abigaila Kalanikuikepo‘oloku Maikai.
October 5, 1896—Genealogies of Stella Keomailani Cockett who died without lineal descendants; and the child of Kekulu and Kaiakoili, being David Kalani.
October 19, 1896—Genealogies of Tilly Kaumakaokane Cummins, Thomas Keauiaole Cummins, and John T. Walker Cummins; King Keaweaua Mersberg, James Kahai Mersberg, Jr., Lily Kahalewai Mersberg, Marie Mersberg, Lydia Mersberg, Jane Piilani Mersberg, and Charles Mersberg; John Adams Kaenakulani Cummins, Thomas C. Kaihikapu Cummins, and Raplee Kawelokalani Cummins; May Kaaolani Cummins Creighton; Flora Kahanolani Cummins; children of Kekupuo-i; Ponilani Kaiama (w), Margaret Loe Kaiama, Esther Nahaukapuokalani Kaiama, Levi Kaiama and Keliimaikai Kaiama; Grace Kamaikui Piianaia, Niaupio Piianaia, and Heulumanawaokalani Piianaia (k); Phoebe Ulualoha Wilcox; and Daniel Kekuhio Keliiaa and Kekukamaikalani Keliiaa.
October 26, 1896—Genealogy of Katherine Kaonohiulaokalani Brown who died without lineal descendants.
November 2, 1896—Genealogy Hana Kaunahi and Akahi who both died without lineal descendants.
After the death of Prince Kuhio Kalaniana‘ole on January 13, 1922, the Associated Press reported, “Fourteen chiefs selected by the committee from the high chiefs of Hawaii will bear the casket of Prince Kuhio at the funeral Sunday morning. The selection are Henry P. Beckley, Edwin Kea, David Hoapili, Sr., Kaliinonao, John Nahaolelua, Alex Nahaolelua, Jesse Makainai, William Simerson, John H. Wise, William Taylor, Geo. Kalohapauole, David Maikai, Ahapuni Boyd, Clement Parker, Samuel Parker, Jr., as bearer of orders and David Hoapili, Jr. as bearer of the tabu stick.” These men were selected from the Estate of Ali‘i (Chiefs).
Any person today who is a direct lineal descendant of the Hawaiian Chiefs identified in these published genealogies belong to the Estate of Nobles (Chiefs), and are eligible to be appointed as Nobles in the Legislative Assembly and/or to the Throne in accordance with Hawaiian law.
The Estate of the People
Any person today who is a direct lineal descendant of a Hawaiian subject before the United States occupation began at 12 noon of August 12, 1898, belong to the Estate of the People.
Queen Lili‘uokalani appointed Princess Ka‘iulani as her heir apparent in 1891, but was unable to get confirmation by the Nobles because they were prevented from entering the Legislative Assembly as a result of the so-called 1887 bayonet constitution that began the insurgency. In 1917, Queen Lili‘uokalani died with no such appointment or Proclamation leaving the Throne vacant. After the Queen’s death, only Prince Kuhio was left of the heirs presumptive.
Why is so convenient that the queens ascension to throne is left out but yet she is recognized. She took the oath of support under the 1887 and saw that constitution amended twice. She then moved to promulgate a new one did just as her brother did and his predecessor. So the 1887 was being used to run the country until the overthrow so whats all the revision about or the lack of transparency about what they did back then?
Kealii8, Oh, excuse, MrKealii8,
As I have stated on the Hawaiian Kingdom Info site yesterday:
For as long as you’ve been exposed to issues concerning
the Hawaiian Kingdom you’ve learned nothing!
At some point in your life you’ve got to realize you gave
Hawaiian history your best shot and it’s time to tap out!
You should try out “Conklin U” because it seems as though
you’re pretty much in line with Dr. dumb ass Conklin’s
distorted view of Hawaiian history, plus Ken could really
use a friend as it must be very lonely being the only numb
nut trying to defend something U.S. Secretary of State John
Kerry is not willing to do!
If you’re having a hard time with Hawaiian history now,
the future will only be an up hill battle for you!
I believe you may belong to the unofficial fourth political
Estate (Numb Nut class) dumb ass, never knowing if you’re
coming or going! Go figga?
Pretty soon the looser abercrombie will be able to join you
and kenny boy, he no mo job soon!
Take some time to gather your thoughts, if indeed you have
any, and ask what it is you really want to know!
The 1887 bayonet constitution has the same force and effect
as the U.S. Joint Resolution to annex the Hawaiian Islands!
Oh, for you that means NADA!
Mahalo!
why are you and why you have fowl language, geez you know the saying is you say what you are. chill dude everyone has a say in this, are you even kanaka? ke akua hele malama
E kalamai au for the fowl language Manaunui
and to everyone else on this blog!
This goes back several years with Kealii8.
It’s one thing when someone is in a learning
process and making an attempt to get ahead
of the learning curve, but this person’s
contribution serves only to confuse!
Yep, I’m Kanaka. Sometimes I have too much naka
naka in my Kanaka, and like you said I gotta chill!
Mahalo for the advise Manaunui!
Pau
Oh boy I point out a fact and I get a child’s rant and drive for a answer. I didn’t think I would find someone like win who doesn’t support the queen and her authority, first time for everything I guess auwe
MrKealii8…..Oh what a joke like we don’t know it is you Kealii. I totally agree with Win808 for you should tryout “Conklin U” because it is clear that the both of you don’t know what the hell you are talking about and that is due to the personal agenda’s you both have.
Another thing not only are both of you jealous of Keanu, but neither of you can even hold a candle next to either and as Keanu has stated time and time again: “Be extremely careful in what you say and do because it can come back to hurt you” and as far as I can see there is very little difference between you, Conklin, Collette, Waihe’e and the rest of the idiots who are trying distort the…..TRUTH!!! Do I hear War Crime??? By golly I believe I do….
EO!
Eh, talking about machado, I heard that OHA is planning
to terminate Kamana’opono Crabbe as their CEO.
So much for the ho’oponopono they had. Bait & switch!
If the representatives of OHA were actually representing
the interest of the people they would remove themselves
from office and conform to the will of the people.
Why even make an election of representatives for the
Office of Hawaiian Affairs when they have absolutely no
regard for the people they supposed to represent, it’s
a sham! Deep seated corruption!!
If OHA is renewed upon in their session of ho’oponopono,
they should be ahead of the Maui county council and
asking for support for Representative Mele Carroll’s
questions before the State of Hawaii legislators concerning
the two agreements our Queen entered into with the U.S.
back in 1893!
Polopei, and watch OHA and the corrupted politicians try to stop the request by Mau’i County Councils request as well just as they had done in wanting to stop John Kerry from having to respond to Kamana’opono’s letter. The illegal occupier is using the Hawaiian people and their participation in OHA’s Election process as a cover up to the fact that OHA represents the agenda of the United States fo America and NOT to interest of the people.
Oh my god you two post something with some merit not Rants and raves and you thought I was hiding my god is this what the Keanu clones have come to?
k8 – Although I wasn’t responding to you, I would be
only too honored to be considered a Keanu clone,
but I’m not there yet! You on the other hand have
nothing to worry about, I don’t think you’ll ever be
considered a Keanu clone! You have a lot to learn!
Sad to say your facts are just misplaced interpretations!
If your so called facts are of any value go ahead and
take Keanu’s course and take on his challenge and
that is to refute his dissertation, but you’d better be
prepared to defend your position if not you’ll look
like a DA, and doesn’t stand for District Attorney!
Your ipuwai (jug of knowledge) is making a lot of
noise, go fill it up!
BTW, I too believe Dr. Sai is pono and I also
believe he is bringing peace to the aina.
God bless you Dr. sai, your Ohana, your extended
Ohana and all the people that help support your
efforts it will never be forgotten! Mahalo nui
Pololei!!!
Kanekeawe i was responding to two posts one seems to have disappeared as it appeared on my response. So my apologies to you if you thought id named or identified you.
A law or amendment to the constitution maybe challenged at anytime if it was implemented unconstitutionaly. The 1887 constitution was being adherde to at that time but it is always subject to a legal challange.
This is no different when laws that were passed and implemented are repealled after subjected to a constitutional legal challange under U.S. law.
The 1887 bayonet constitution was not properly constituted by law. First of all it was done under duress, secondly, it was signed by the king but never put to the legislature for ratification as required by law. The cabinet that was forced upon the king under duress never put it before the interim but out of session legislature for ratification. They by passed that and went ahead and held elections for a whole new legislature as if the king could change the constitution without the required legislature ratification. The 1887 constitution was even found to be unconstitutional in the blount report.
So, there is a huge problem with that unconstitutional constitution if subjected to a legal challenge. I mean even Stevie Wonder could see this problem.
Mahalo Kekoa for your input. My question is can the monarch pass it on there authority alone? I asked this to Henry Noa, Dennis Ragsdale and leion siu and they all said yes noting that the 64 was passed in the same manner and the queen planed to do the same for the 93. Also the queens oath to support when she took the station of monarch seeing the 87 amended twice while reigning
Eh Waha Nui Kealii Makekau, why don’t you go and get your own website and see how many people follow your dumb okole.
Eh douche why dont you let the adults have a conversation on this blog. If its yours i will leave if not try a library
Eh Douche Bag Kealii Makekau, how dare you try to even call yourself an adult when your mammy is still having to change your gorilla size diapers…..XXXXXXXXXXXXXXL!!! As you have been told: “If you think you are so smart all you need to do is to challenge Dr. Sai’s dissertation”!!! So, what are you too chicken or too stupid??? We all know that you are both!!! Like I said get your own website. You are taking up valuable space on this blog with your ignorance and empty gourd that I believe you call your Po’o!!! Lose Money You!!!
LOL Douche boy been checking me out! Sorry chickah I’m straight but if you like big boys then thats your choice. Challenge Sai really everyone knows LHG, free hawaii, ke aupuni, he dont take public questions esp in hawaii only at private functions he selects dialog and uses his dissertation at a whole?
And really mammy and how dare you! who uses language like that anymore what are 11 LOL. Go get your own website or are you the webmaster lapdog now.
Common Scott Crawford you have to admit even this guy aint doing keanu any favors.
Sorry Dough Boy Makekaukau, I’m not into guy’s and as far as you being straight that is a BIIIIIIIIG joke!!! Just look in your mirror and see for yourself if you can even fit your entire self in one especially with your even BIIIIIIIGGER head that is so full of yourself. It appears you are in need of attention and most closet case are that way so, why don’t you go to your LHG website and spread your ignorance with those who are like minded, misguided and seriously missed informed as you.
But if you want to hang around here and continue to make a fool of yourself in trying to challenge Keanu, his research and his irrefutable evidence then by all means be our guest. Maybe just maybe you may finally learn something, but hey that is like asking for a miracle!!!
By the way I have a box of Makekaukau Dough Boy Doughnuts for you and your mammy said that it was your favorite kine…..”Numb Nut With Sprinkles”!!!
Enjoy the doughnuts!!! Enjoy the education!!! And forgive me if I don’t respond to your ridiculous comments…..I have far more important things to do then to waste anymore of it on YOU!!! You Pillsbury Dough Boy you…..come on gives us a smile…..bake us a cake…..come on…..Makekaukau…..
Oh douche boy you kill me now youre the offical donut eating “with NUTS” big boy dough loving co owner of this site. ALL time LOL!
Scott please for the honor of the reeves ohana get this kook otta here and back to special ED.
MAMMY, LOL
Sorry Kealii Makekaukau the only kook around here is you….you OHA wannabe!!!
You have been flapping your jaws about how Keanu was soooo wrong and how you were soooo right about the 1887 Bayonet Constitution being valid when I have been telling you all this time that it was NOT because it was never ratified by the Legislative Assembly.
No wonder you are so envious and jealous of me. It’s okay if I was a wannabe like you I would be too. Continuing to make your silly willy comments towards me is only making you look like an even bigger fool then you already are.
I know it will be hard for you to stop, but if at first you don’t succeed TRY TRY TRY AGAIN!!! And maybe just maybe one day when you grow up…not out…UP….you will understand!!! But I seriously doubt it….
Forgive me if I don’t respond to your childish comments an further for I have far more important things to do…….
Ok Scott I now know who this someone is and kook is being way to generous so I will back off. When her FB friends even call her a kook you no you found the meaning of dizzy.
Mahalo for putting the 1887 page up. Maybe a ad for e harmony might help I’m sure get Keanu’s on that site
Kealii Makekaukau,
Like most guy/girls who won’t come out of the closet, you love to flap your jaws even when I told long ago that you were wrong and what did you do??? Like those who are extremely confused and still hiding in the closet you immediately begin to make inaccurate and childish comments in your attempt to bring those who are straight and far more intelligent then you DOWN to your lower level because you are too fifi to admit that you were WRONG!!! Shame on you!!!
Now that I have proven that you were wrong instead of trying to bring me DOWN to your fifi level with your childish comments why don’t you come UP to mine by trying to say something intelligent and CORRECT for once in your life.
I know it is something that you will need to learn, but hey there is always hope that a miracle will happen if you….BELIEVE!!! I believe you can do it….I really do!!! Don’t revert back to your jealousy of me just because I was right and you were wrong….Imua, Imua e na poki’i…..move forward……I HAVE!!! Can YOU???
Stop replying douche the conversation already happening without you so go plant something and please dont interject in that one either no bring nothing to table and you weren’t asked in the first place!
But i sure won’t!
I have to object anything and everything that has happened during the corruption years 1865 – 1999. Everything should be carefully scrutinized by the majority of Hawaiian subjects and or claimants to have chief. Then we can apply the laws and constitution of the Hawaiian kingdom. Hawaiian genealogy is not that simple, we were a not a people to put things in writing, we would have communication skills far more advanced than any ordinary person can fathom. So I say more scrutiny and more study on the genealogy of the Hawaiian chief.
I have done a lot of research on the royal patents and land commission awards and also genealogy. I have found a tremendous amount of fraud, and criminal wrong doings that include archival/land record tampering and identity theft. This kind of pilau got to be root out and cannot continue. Its like letting your weeds overgrow in your front yard and letting it go while you throw one baby party on the weeds.The list above get my family inside but still clean up first. remember anything that happened around the overthrow not good because of to much corrupted officials in the government. We should not continue off of a mistaken identity clause or stolen identity clause. mahalo ke akua
Because of the corruption surrounding the overthrow and illegal occupation of the Hawaiian kingdom, a thorough investigation and study should focus on the genealogy of the old kings and chiefs before anyone is to be considered as ALII.
Mahalo NUI! This is such an important document. I cane across a reference to this in a newspaper from the Kingdom. The reader was so impressed with the reports. I will post a link later.
As we reemerge as a nation, could one of the amendments be that a noble and the monarch would need to be aboriginal Hawaiian? I believe the wording is already there to some dergree. As I understand it, kauai to Maui had already mixed their bloodlines, then Kamehameha moved across the islands mixing with the older blood lines.
For me it is not a racist thing, but the power to preserve our culture and ensure that Kanaka will always be able to live in Hawaii if they are willing to swear allegiance.
We only have so much land. What will our population look like a 100 years from now. I anticipate a swarm of foreigners applying to be Hawaiian.
Abigail is no princess since she was not authorized by the Kingdom Legislature. She is one of many people who are eligible to be appointed a noble. She just so happens to have Campbell Estate (and other) monies to make her rich and therefore somehow more privileged. People actually prostrate to her (ill-advised; they should also be prostrating to the poor alii of today who don’t even know they are alii). Mahalo for her contributions that she has done (Hawaiian language schools, Iolani Palace, etc.), but she is also very annoying for making people believe that she somehow the ‘queen’ (keep your okole off da throne!) or even a legitimate ‘princess’. In her dreams… Wait till the Legislature is seated again and then we can re-establish the royal lineages as national symbols. It may even be she who is authorized—stand in line with the other would-be nobles. Your money is only money.
Edmund K. Silva, Jr. at KingdomOfHawaii.info proclaims to be the King of The Kingdom of Hawaii. Anyone else proclaiming to be the King or Queen of the Kingdom at this time?? Aloha Aina ~
Aloha sista,
Aaah, get plenty claiming to be Kings and Queens,
aaah but no can! They no can get pass the no can
be idiot criteria! Someone brought dis up before, I
think they said Burger King was giving away Crowns
and you could get things your way. I think some saw
the inch and figga they can go fo da mile!
Auwe, no can!
Like cousin Dutchy mentioned above, these wanna be Kings
and Queens should mind what they say and do from here on
out as a lot of them are treading on the edge of war crimes!
Lets face it, not everyone with Alii koko will be in the position
like Dr. Sai to call the critical shots, however all as cousins
will make damn sure no idiot will get pass us!
In my personal reality, an Alii would not endorse a potential
candidate for the office of Lt. Governor for the State of Hawaii
of another country and of all places in front of I’olani Palace!
121 years of oppression, many Kupuna have since passed
while waiting for the huli, and a certain so called Alii has the
audacity to defile the house of the Ruling Chiefs? I don’t think
so! In the days of old, brothers fought against brothers to
lead the people. It is the people who determine what Alii
was pono and who brought peace to the aina.
It is clear that Dr. Sai is pono and bringing peace to the aina,
all the other wanna be Kings and Queens are at this point
hewa. Plus the others can’t even get pass first base to even
think of huli.
E kalamai, I took too long!
A hui hou
Anyone feel like being a King?
How about you MrKealii8 ball?
Get plenty Burger Kings in Hawaii nei
Me hell know gots to have major credentials to run a country.
Besides i dont like places that serve horse meat like you do winner winner 808=horse hamburger dinners 🙁 Does keanu allow you to eat at the kings Halae LOL Major
Is there any way the acting government can have another group of people researching the geneologies of the alii class? I mean even if things were pono again, the legislation would be very imbalanced. Anyone can claim to be alii, but they need geneology to prove it and what about the people who dont know they are alii? As was stated in the article, all of these estates are important in Hawaiian society. Pehea lā?
The Hawaiian genealogy was passed through the breath/olelo and never was written until the corruption started in the Hawaiian kingdom government. We need historical studies about how the kanaka people was named, for instance the Hawaiian people did not have sir names meaning no last names. All names had precise meanings and was very important to how you were perceived by your parents and the community. We cannot disregard or forget our culture or our past, it is the very essence of our being. Sure it is complex and confusing, so go study and learn it, talk to the old kupuna as they have recorded many kupuna talking story from the1970s to the present. Also we have native testimonies and other archive records to study. Majority of the kanaka people did not learn to read and right in the early 19th century, except for the high chiefs and royal families who were chosen to go abroad to learn the western ways. Just do a formal investigation and study about the genealogy of the high chiefs because we cannot use something that was done at the time when our queen was in prison and the government was being run by insurgents/the committee of 12. During this time all records were being tampered with not to mention the hunt for certain alii were still ongoing to kill of the royal lines. So much confusion and wrongdoings were happening at this time. To much to say, so I will just say mahalo ke akua and malama pono.
We must also remember just as Kamehameha’s birth was to be kept in secrecy due to his uncle Alapa’i Nui’s fear of his own nephew’s birth being a threat to his own rule so, too were there things that Kamehameha Ekahi wanted and needed to keep in secrecy as well with the arrival of foreigner’s and their threat to not only his kingdom, but also to his bloodline.
And as he had predicted his fears came to pass with the overthrow of his kingdom and how everyone went under ground hiding many things including their genealogy to only be presented when the time was right and more importantly safe.
I love the conversation. Mahalo Ke Akua for all the information that is coming forth. Please help all of us trace our ancestry with the intent to find our ancestors and learn about them. Find out who we are and what is in our koko, our gifts and talents and our kuleana. Just trying to find out if we qualify as an ALII without finding out about our kupuna is to destroy who we are. We are more than titles. Let us search out our ancestors and discover who they are. Do their work for them, and restore our spiritual connection to them. There is the power of a strong nation of people who know who they are. IMUA!!!!
One possible discrepancy I found in my genealogy was my great-great-great grandmother, from Keahou (Big Island). Her name is listed as Kalawaianui. I am still learning the language so I am still ignorant in Hawaiian translations.
Using a dictionary- the big pole fisherman. I was told they were probably the head fisherman of an area (probably aku). Someone else said they were a canoe carver. Despite the translation, her gender has me questioning the information.
Now I understand that the Kanaka did not view women as lesser evidenced by the fact there were women trained in lua and Queen Liliuokalani. However, I have yet to come across a reference to a wahine fisherman, canoe carver or konohiki.
Kealii8, I don’t really understand the question. Could you reframe your question maybe that would help.
Can the monarch use his authority “powers” to pass or promugate a constitution on his own?
I asked this to Henry Noa, Dennis Ragsdale and leion siu and they all said yes noting that the 1864 was passed in that same manner and the queen planed to do the same for the 93.
The quick on that is no!
The 1864 Hawaiian Kingdom constitution that
Lot Kamehameha V implemented actually put
an end to that option and that is why the 1887
Bayonet constitution is unlawful under Hawaiian
Kingdom law.
It is my personal belief that the implementation of
the 1864 constitution by Kamehameha V, at first
glance made it appear upon its inception that such
an option is available when in fact that option was
terminated simultaneously upon its inception.
This is a part taken from August 25, 2014 post,
Hawaiian Constitutionalism:
The 1864 Legislative Assembly appointed a special committee comprised of Godfrey Rhodes, John I‘i, and J.W.H. Kauwahi to respond to Kamehameha V’s opening speech of the new legislature. The committee recognized the constitutionality of the King’s prerogative under the former constitution and acknowledged that this “prerogative converted into a right by the terms of the [1852] Constitution, Your Majesty has now parted with, both for Yourself and Successors, and this Assembly thoroughly recognizes the sound judgment by which Your Majesty was actuated in the abandonment of a privilege, which, at some future time might have been productive of untold evil to the nation.”
What else could King Kalakaua do under duress?
Pau
Kealii, I am pressed for time but will elaborate later if that’s what you want. To get straight to the point the answer to your question is an absolute NO.
I would like to hear how the gentlemen listed above documented that eroneous conclusion.
I must admit Kam V was a genius in how he utilized the provision in the law to lawfully establish the 1864. All the while knowing by establishing the 1864 it would do away with the very provision used by him to establish it in the first place. This is why no other monarch after the 1864 could do what he did and make legislation on his own to create, change or amend the constitution. This was his way of moving the government into full and distinct seperation of powers.
Pretty cool if you ask me.
Our kupuns were akamai. They understood the game. Now I stay holding a winning lottery ticket, just like every Kanaka. I like cash ’em in!
Kealii, check out the latest post on Hawaiian Constitutionalism. Check out Articles 94 and 45 and you will see why I said the monarch could not pass or promulgate a new constitution. When I get more time to post I’ll elaborate.
Mahalo and i did i also left my reply and cited them perhaps you can comment on it.
Opps my bad i left my comments on the 1887 page please look into it.
Mahalo
Kealii, I found it and here is my reply to that.
First we must go back to the law and the constitution. Kam V anulled the 1852 constitution using article 45 of that constitution. This was his sovereign perogative as long as his new constitution (1864) was approved by the Kuhina Nui, which it was according to article 45.
So the 1864 is all G. Except in the 1864 the sovereign perogative in article 45, 47, and 94 are abolished, no mo, all pau.
The 1864 made each branch of government distinct from each other.
Prior to this distinction Judges who are to interpet law were also in holding office in the legislature that makes law. You see the problem Kam V was dealing with. You even had article 45 allowing the executive who enforces law able to create law for a new constitution.
So now that the 1864 abolished all of that you have to address the 1887 that Kalakaua created on his own.
Did the 1864 constitution that he swore to allow the executive to create a new constitution when it said that only the legslature could do it because article 45 was abolished. No, under the 1864 he could not create a new constitution so it really is not the lawful constitution. Even if the Queen said she swore to it and signed it does not mean it is a constitution created lawfully. Two wrongs don’t make a right. That would be like saying the joint resolution could annex Hawaii because congress passed it and the president signed it even though under U.S. constitution this is not allowed.
Check this out, In a meeting of
the Privy Council that afternoon, Lili‘uokalani took the oath of office, where she swore “in the presence of Almighty God, to maintain the Constitution of the Kingdom whole and inviolate, and to govern in conformity therewith.” Chief Justice Albert F. Judd administered the oath and Lili‘uokalani was thereafter proclaimed Queen. The oath did not state that she maintain the 1887 Bayonet Constitution, but rather “the Constitution.” The Bayonet Constitution was never ratified by the Legislative Assembly, so therefore it was never a constitution to begin with. The 1864 Constitution remained the constitution of the country.
Hope this helps.
The solution to this great mystery is to look at the statements and actions surrounding Her Majesty Lili’uokalani, the Queen if the Hawaiian Islands. She was highly educated in many facets included the “art of reigning”.
Here is three examples show from excerpts from historical documents, including the Queen, herself.
A. F. Judd stated in his interview with Hon. James H. Blount: to wit:
Q. You indicated a desire to make a statement in reference to certain occurrences in the legislature of 1892.
A. The body of Kalakaua arrived here on the 29th of January, 1891. At 2 o’clock that day Liliuokalani took the oath to support the constitution of 1887, which I administered. Kalakaua’s cabinet consisted then of Cummings, C. N. Spencer, Godfrey Brown, and A. P. Peterson. There was a great deal of discussion and wire pulling as to whether that cabinet should have the right to continue. Finally the opinion of the court was asked and it was held that she had liberty to ask for their resignations. They resigned and she appointed Parker, minister of foreign affairs; Widemann, finance; Spencer, interior, and, Whiting, attorney-general.
The Executive Documents of the House of Representatives for the Second Session of the Fifty-third Congress 1893-’94. In Thirty-one Volumes. 1895
REPORT OF COMMISSIONER TO THE HAWAIIAN ISLANDS
Excerpts from document No. 28. Page 376.
=========================================================
Liliuokalani’s statement to Hon. James H. Blount: to wit:
On that day(1), at 11, I was told that I was to take the oath. I sent a note immediately to my husband(2) (at Washington Place) who was lying on a sick bed, and told him of the arrival of my brother’s remains, and of all that had transpired, and he came to the palace as weak as he was.
We conversed on the subject be us; also about the constitution. I told him I did not wish to sign it, as there was a general feeling in the community, and principally amongst the native Hawaiians, that it was not a good constitution, as it had been forced on the King and the Hawaiian people, but my husband persuaded me to sing it, and I obeyed.
At 2 o’clock p. m. we entered the room where all the privy councillors were assembled and there, in their presence, I took the oath of office and swore to abide by the constitution of 1887. As we left the room and waited in the blue room to receive congratulations as well as condolences, just before the members came in a piece of paper, hurriedly written, was thrust in my hand, on which was written, “Do not sign the constitution; I shall soon explain why.” But the deed was done. Chief Justice Judd was the first who came forward, but instead of congratulations, said in an undertone, “Should your ministers come up, say to them that they may keep their portfolios.” I suspected something wrong and kept my countenance.
The Executive Documents of the House of Representatives for the Second Session of the Fifty-third Congress 1893-’94. In Thirty-one Volumes. 1895
REPORT OF COMMISSIONER TO THE HAWAIIAN ISLANDS
Excerpts from document No. 33. Page 391.
(1) January 29, 1891.
(2) Hon. John O. Dominis.
=========================================================
The Queen’s own purposed constitution’s preamble, to wit:
Draft Constitution of January 14, 1893.
PREAMBLE
Whereas the constitution of this Kingdom contains many provisions inconsistent, ambiguous and contradictory in its terms, and is subversive and restrictive of civil and popular rights, and incompatible with enlightened constitutional monarchical government; and
Whereas the prayers of my people, coming in the form of petitions from all parts of this Kingdom, to myself and to the Legislature, asking for a new constitution embodying in it provisions equal rights among all my subjects; which prayer to the Legislature of this Kingdom has not been duly recognized by that body through undue and unjust influences; and
Whereas it has become imperative in order to restore order and tranquillity, and to gratify the just demand of my subjects for a new constitution to be remodeled upon the most liberal and popular form of Constitutional Monarchical Government, that a new constitution be at once promulgated.
Now, therefore, I, Liliuokalani, Queen of the Hawaiian Islands, in my capacity as Sovereign of this Kingdom, and as the representative of the people, and in accordance with their almost universal desire, and in conformity with their wishes, do annul and abrogate the constitution promulgated by Kalakaua on the 7th day of July, A. D. 1887, and do proclaim and promulgate this constitution.
The Executive Documents of the House of Representatives for the Second Session of the Fifty-third Congress 1893-’94. In Thirty-one Volumes. 1895
REPORT OF COMMISSIONER TO THE HAWAIIAN ISLANDS
Excerpts from Draft Constitutions 1893 – PART IV – MISCELLANEOUS No. 2, Page 518.
Conclusion:
They are many revisionist whom want to change history by alleging many events and coming to conclusion of their own through assumptions. Were they there? Can they attest to the facts?
The Queen was there!.we weren’t.she swore an oath to the Constitution of 1887.
The Constitution of 1887 may have been a bad one, as many have stated, including the Queen.
Denying its existence will not make it go away or change events that have already happened.
Mahalo Kekoa it would appear that one there is confusion with her swearing an oath on 1887 why i cited my remarks, second it also looks like the prerogative was going to used as the 1893 preamble notes. So big question then is what now? I dont see 87 as any setback seeing the kingdom restored under it besides it will need to be upgraded or amended to reflect our current political climate
Aloha Kekoa just some points id like to comment on!
“First we must go back to the law and the constitution. Kam V anulled the 1852 constitution using article 45 of that constitution. This was his sovereign prerogative as long as his new constitution (1864) was approved by the Kuhina Nui, which it was according to article 45.”
—————————————1852 Constitution——————————
ART. 45. All important business of the Kingdom which the King chooses to transact in person, he may do, but not without the approbation of the Kuhina Nui. The King and Kuhina Nui shall have a negative on each other public acts,
MODE OF AMENDING THE CONSTITUTION.
ART. 105. Any amendment or amendments to this constitution may be proposed in either branch of the legislature, and if the same shall be agreed to by a majority of the members of each house, such proposed amendment or amendments shall be entered on their journals, with the yeas and nays taken thereon, and referred to the next legislature; which proposed amendment or amendments, shall be published for three months previous to the election of the next House of Representatives; and it; in the next Legislature, such proposed amendment or amendments shall be agreed to by two-thirds of all the members of each House, and be approved by the King, such amendment or amendments shall become part of the Constitution of this Kingdom.
—————————————1864 Constitution——————————-
“So the 1864 is all G. Except in the 1864 the sovereign prerogative in article 45, 47, and 94 are abolished, no mo, all pau.”
ARTICLE 45. The legislative power of the three estates of this Kingdom is vested in the King and the legislative assembly, which assembly shall consist of the nobles appointed by the King and of the representatives of the people sitting together.
ARTICLE 47. Every member of the legislative assembly shall take the following oath; I most solemnly swear, in the presence of Almighty God, that I will faithfully support the constitution of the Hawaiian Kingdom, and conscientiously and impartially discharge my duties as a member of this assembly.
There is no article 94 in the 1864????
——————————————————————————————-
“Even if the Queen said she swore to it and signed it does not mean it is a constitution created lawfully.”
Kalakaua reign started 1874, 1887 Kalakaua sworn oath to uphold the Constitution, A. F. Judd administer oath. The Constitution proposed amendment in 1890 [Art 55 and new Art 83] and both taking affect Nov. 29, 1892. The 1887 Constitution operated unchallenged lawfully by anyone for six (6) years. Furthermore Queen Liliuokalani sworn as oath to uphold the 1887 Constitution on Jan. 29, 1891, sworn in by A. F. Judd.
According to your manao the Kingdom ceased to exist in 1887?
To all the brothers and sisters of our proud Hawaiian race, please stop using the Hawaiian Kingdom’s website and blog for your own personal dislike of each others opinion and mana’o and show some class for all kanaka’s to be proud of who we are. You all should stop what you are doing because it sure as hell not helping the Hawaiian Kingdom and what Keanu is working very hard to accomplish,
Kaleolani
I totally agree!!!
Unfortunately there are those who come on to this website not to obtain knowledge and education, but to challenge it. That is okay to, but when they discover that they are wrong instead of admitting their mistake and then using this education to move forward they begin to make comments towards those who tried to assist them.
Mahalo……
Anakala Kama, Hawaiian Kingdom Blog and to you my fellow Hawaiian brothers & sisters,
I would like to apologize to all of you for allowing myself to get caught up in what appears to be someones personal disagreement with me and my mana’o, and in wrongfully allowing it to be expressed on this blog that was meant and intended for enlightenment, education, the sharing of our mana’o and for the betterment of our people and our cause in making the wrong right.
Please accept my humble apology.
Malama Pono,
Dutchy
Aloha Kaleolani Kama,
My sincere apology to you as well as everyone else including
Mr. Kealii8. I apologized to Kealii8 on Mr. Crawford’s site too.
Most of all my sincere apology to Dutchy, if not for my actions
there would be no pilikia on your end, e kalamai au!
I learned a lot about Hawaii’s history the hard way, from fake
kings & queens giving up time and money, now that I have
personally qualified the information I’m willing to defend, I
get over protective when I see the learning curve turning in
the opposite direction.
Most of the time I just observe and don’t react to information
on the blogs, this time I felt I needed to say something!
Sorry!
Pau
Kealii, so you are promoting that if there is no provision in the constitution for King Kalakaua and Queen Liliu’okalani to promulgate a new constitution, they can just do it anyway and it is binding? I don’t think so. King Kam V 1864 constitution was properly promulgated and did away with that provision. Article 80 of the constitution specifically states that power is left to the legislature to change or amend the constitution.
Hawaii was a constitutional monarchy with the separation of powers doctrine fully in place. NOT an unconstitutional absolute monarchy without the speration of powers.
You must remember it all started illegally by the insurgents and the king went along with it under duress. It’s called fruits of the poisonous tree. How can an illegal act ever be legal?
Kekoa i say its binding for the fact that no one is on record that i could find who filed an objection to it. But mainly the actions of the queen and how she notes what authority she was under and how she was going about to end the 87 in the preamble. She knew what was going on and what actions she was exercising why the conspirators acted on the 14th when she introduced her 93 constitution.
Lastly and I’m just curious what if the 93 had been passed rather than withdrawn would the question still remain that 64 is still good or would the 93 be lawful?
Thank you for this dialogue you have made very points that i plan to share with my said friends about the authority the kingdom was under.
The 93 wouldn’t have passed the insurgents were already implementing their plan. You seem to be ignoring this very important aspect when analysing our modern history. I wouldn’t waste any effort on “what if”, unless it follows doccupation.
Kealii, as I posted earlier in this thread a constitutional challange can be made at anytime. Unconstitutional is Unconstitutional and will never survive a challange. When the time is right and if needed, I and many others will make that challange and the 1887 will be done away with once and for all.
I do not think that would be necessary because even James Blount understood the 1887 was not legal and binding but a plot put into motion by the insurgents. When pointedly questioning Judd if the 1887 was put to the majority for vote Judd said no and gave a lame excuse to try to justify it.
Tim, mahalo for mentioning deoccupation since it is the absolute proof that everything done by the insurgents and U.S. did not extinguish the nation state of Hawaii and it’s legal order. This takes into account everything plotted and implemented by the insurgents from the beginning such as; Duress used by the insurgents to force upon King Kalakaua a new cabinet made up of insurgents, who drafted the 1887 constitution then forced him under duress to sign it and implementing it without legislature ratification as required by article 80 of the 1864 lawfully in place constitution. These preliminary illegal acts are all part of the bigger scheme to cede Hawaii to the U.S. and are noted in President Cleveland’s investigation.
No rights can be claimed or derived as a result of an illegal act. The first illegal act by the isurgents mentioned above is the poisonous tree and all it’s fruits from it are poisonous as well and no legal rights can be claimed or derived from it.
This is why I am confident that as we move into deoccupation the 1887 constitution is a moot point and the 1864 constitution will be what is recognized as the lawful constitution (MHO).
I agree. The irony, that a lot of people don’t understand, is if the deoccupation process fails so does America.
It is really hard to see people pushing for maintaining the American presence without acknowledging this.
Mahalo for your thorough understanding of law and ability to provide references or precedent. Shuts down frivolous arguments.
Kealii, I will answer point for point your post, since you may have some confusion on interpeting what I said.
Your post —————————————1852 Constitution——————————
ART. 45. All important business of the Kingdom which the King chooses to transact in person, he may do, but not without the approbation of the Kuhina Nui. The King and Kuhina Nui shall have a negative on each other public acts,
MODE OF AMENDING THE CONSTITUTION.
ART. 105. Any amendment or amendments to this constitution may be proposed in either branch of the legislature, and if the same shall be agreed to by a majority of the members of each house, such proposed amendment or amendments shall be entered on their journals, with the yeas and nays taken thereon, and referred to the next legislature; which proposed amendment or amendments, shall be published for three months previous to the election of the next House of Representatives; and it; in the next Legislature, such proposed amendment or amendments shall be agreed to by two-thirds of all the members of each House, and be approved by the King, such amendment or amendments shall become part of the Constitution of this Kingdom
1. Answer. The 1852 constitution was lawfully in effect and Art. 105 was the mode for amending the constitution if they all could agree on the change or amendment. Key word “agree”.
art. 105 of the 1852 was being used in order to create a new 1864 constitution but they could not “AGREE”, the hang up was on articles 61 and 62.
Since they could not get past the disagreement a constitutional convention was created to address everything all over again in order to come to an agreement but again there was an impass on the same atricles 61 and 62. So the convention was dissolved.
Now, Kam V used the trumpt card of art. 45 of the 1852 constitution to by pass the dead locked legislature and constitutionaly along with the agreement of the Kuhina Nui promulgated the 1864 constitution.
You see the “LOOP HOLE” of art. 45 1852??? See how it was used even though art. 105 was in place ???? See why Kam V saw art. 45 as a problem even though he used it??? That’s why he got rid of it. He saw how it could someday be used for evil. Wow! he was two steps ahead of the insurgents who could have used art. 45 as a constitutional loop hole when they forced the 1887 on Kalakaua.
your post —————————————1864 Constitution——————————-
“So the 1864 is all G. Except in the 1864 the sovereign prerogative in article 45, 47, and 94 are abolished, no mo, all pau.”
ARTICLE 45. The legislative power of the three estates of this Kingdom is vested in the King and the legislative assembly, which assembly shall consist of the nobles appointed by the King and of the representatives of the people sitting together.
ARTICLE 47. Every member of the legislative assembly shall take the following oath; I most solemnly swear, in the presence of Almighty God, that I will faithfully support the constitution of the Hawaiian Kingdom, and conscientiously and impartially discharge my duties as a member of this assembly.
There is no article 94 in the 1864????
2. Answer. There is no article 94 in the 1864 because is was in the 1852. The 1864 constitution abolished art. 94.
___________________________________________________
your post…..“Even if the Queen said she swore to it and signed it does not mean it is a constitution created lawfully.”
Kalakaua reign started 1874, 1887 Kalakaua sworn oath to uphold the Constitution, A. F. Judd administer oath. The Constitution proposed amendment in 1890 [Art 55 and new Art 83] and both taking affect Nov. 29, 1892. The 1887 Constitution operated unchallenged lawfully by anyone for six (6) years. Furthermore Queen Liliuokalani sworn as oath to uphold the 1887 Constitution on Jan. 29, 1891, sworn in by A. F. Judd.
According to your manao the Kingdom ceased to exist in 1887?
3. Answer. No I did not say the Kingdom ceased to exist, that is ridiculous.
A country and it’s gov.t can continue to function even if it has an illegaly promulgated constitution or law.
The problem is we have those who were or are now operating under the false presumption it is legal . They will have a multitude of problems when it is put to a legal challange and it is found that the 1887 is UNCONSTITUTIONAL and repealed.
The point is can the 1887 withstand a constitutional challange based on law? Not on how they conducted themselves utilizing and unconstitutionaly promulgated constitution.
That type of thinking is like Konklin saying that because other countries recognized the insurgents as the gov’t then they were a legal gov’t and Hawaii was legally ceded to the United States.
Yeah right.
I am Hawaiian decent. My mother was Ho’opiiaina. Unfortunately I lost my mother fairly early but I remember she knew the language passed from her grandparents etc. Song dance and very involved in keeping the culture in our home. I am still learning many things and there is so much I look forward to learning. However I am a little confused with some of these posts. One thing I did learn from my mother, I guess I must say in her opinion and what she had been taught, Hawaii was illegally overthrown by the U.S. It appears that some dispute that here…
Everything I have read or heard through my mother, the Islands were stolen from our people. Am I missing something here?
Mahalo
To add to Braddah kekoa’s comment, I just want to say that if you’re looking for legitimate, honest Hawai’i history- this is the place. It will take time to understand everything on this blog but no other source comes close to this site when it comes to Hawai’i history.
Aloha Samantha, I am glad you have an interest in educating yourself with hawaii’s true legal history. The Island’s were not stolen since it is real property that is immovable. They still remain here in the pacific in the same spot it always did. What you had was violations of Hawaii’s sovereignty under international law known as an illegal and prolonged occupation. It was and continues as a disguised annexation leading to state hood but it is all illegal. In an occupation it is legally impossible to have annexation. The Hawaiian Kingdom as a recognized nation state continues to exist. The illegal acts of the insurgents and the U.S. did not extinguish the Hawaiian Kingdom. So because it continues to exist we have the right to end the occupation and get hawaii back. Hawaii was kidnapped and now we are in the process of having the kidnappers return it to us, the rightful owners.
I would suggest you take the time to study the home page and the entire website of this blog to educate youself and not just take my word.
Good luck.
I really appreciate your response and I basically put it in the simplest terms you pretty much said it more like the stories my mother had told.
Thank you
So is this supposed to be the Authority on who will be considered royal or noble? If so, and though I do appreciate some of the info, it is certainly lacking and leaves much to be desired. Our peoples genealogy is and will not be marginalized by a single publication in a newspaper after the overthrow! There are countless others who come from royal lineages not expressed in this blog, and it would be a travesty if the “acting” government tries to use these in such a limited capacity.
That article and research was conducted by a passionate Hawaiian in 188?, not an Americanized Kanaka.
I acknowledge there are serious issues regarding genealogy. This is an argument that has validity and can be brought up later.
There is no reason they could not sit in the house of representatives and present your argument.
sorry to say but AOLE, you saying that we follow all laws up until now? and throw our ali’i to the side until a later time?why? we waited over 100 yrs wont take but another yr to determine through archival records and Hawaiian protocol, to make our ALI”I pono.
The report from the board in 1884 is full of jibber jabber and shows the incompetence of leadership on the board. Also there are massive recorded archival proofs to say that the final report of this board is 100% choosing what it wants to report. This said will stir up a heap of negativity concerning ALII in our nation. Also as this board was in session during the insurgents rule, it should be done over by more than just 3 people. I propose that our nation choose from districts nonbiased kanaka who knows our history and can filter out the bs. Maybe a panel of upto 30 people from all the islands.
Could you provide clarification, as to your opposition to the report. There ddefinitely will be another board after our Kingdom is restored. Just curious as to why you feel the way you feel. Surely, there is a reason for your opposition.
Aloha descendant, you do have legitimate concerns and it all can be addressed legally. The HK law regarding the board is still in effect and will carry on after the transition. All findings from the overthrow up to when the board stopped can go through review for accuracy. Then the board can continue their work up to the present, no big deal. I’m pretty sure those already verified were those the AHKG mentioned. The work of the Board is an on going process and will be updated.
“Kamehameha V did not have any children”? what!? Of course he did. He and Abigail Maheha had a daughter Named Keanolani, born May 1846.
Aloha Benehaka, Do you have any additional info on Abigail Maheha and Keanolani, which you could share? I have a personal interest in furthering research into both… Mahalo, DCK
So much hostility against our own people. And that is the very reason the occupiers don’t have to do a thing or foreign governments won’t recognize our sovereign status. All the occupiers need to do is sit back and let our people fight each other and pull each other down. Everyone has their points but choose to attack each others differences. Maybe it’s too hard for us to work on commonalities to attain the same objective. The bickering among ourselves will even drive those on the fence back over to the other side. Maybe the time is not right for meaningful dialog. We haven’t transcended to that plane of consciousness yet. Obviously… Ke akua pu… I pray for our future generations… They’ll need all the help they can get in restoring our nation.
Instructor Hedden.. some interesting information I wanted to share with you. Please feel free to peruse at your leisure.
ALOHA, Dear acting Government of Hawaii:
*** Hawaiian family names’, they are sometimes all we have left of ones memory? An example of this would be with the Hawaiian Family name “Mea’alani”. This Hawaiian Family name: “Mea’alani”, it is found multiple times on Ancestry.com, genealogy. But, this name “Mea’alani”, as yet, is found no other place?
— I have asked some of the Hawaiian locals’ about this oddity, & (when ancestry.com has record of this name, but, Hawaii does not) some of Hawaiian locals’ response was: “it would seem that someone: “they wanted this name erased from record”?
*** ( — Maybe, that this type of thing has happened in the past, don’t know?)
*** I am appealing:
***: Please Help: with any information concerning the Hawaiian family name: “Mea’alani”.
{(“Mea’alani”: born 1860, on Maui, to parents Kuna, & Kesmea)}
Mahalo, for your help.
Aloha
I just want to know the name of the prince (“descended from Kamehameha” ???) who performed with Harry Owens and his Royal Hawaiians on TV and whatever happened to him. I am 84 so don’t wait too long to answer. LOL I was attending UCLA in 1949-52 and we watched that program every week. All 8 stations in LA were black and white then. I had a Hawaiian sorority sister who taught us the Hukilau (sp.?) hula and later I enjoyed many trips to the Islands where we enjoyed Don Ho. Helen Tenney Naumer