The United States should vacate the Kingdom of Hawaii

"It is very relevant. The monarchy ruled without the full consent of the governed and makes this government just as illegitimate as the later governments"You have provided no evidence of this. It was the Queen LiliE9;uokalani wrote the draft 1893 constitution. "In 1891, LiliE9;uokalani ascended the throne. In 1892, she backed measures in the kingdom's legislature to amend or rewrite the constitution. However, the measures failed as they had during the reign of her brother. Among the measures that failed was an amendment that would lower the property requirement to vote so most of the general public could vote. When that was voted down, many Hawaiian citizens protested."[1] Though I still don't see how this is relevant, you are acting as if the Queen was some tyrant, "In 1895, an abortive attempt by Hawaiian royalists to restore Queen LiliE9;uokalani to power resulted in the queen's arrest. She was forced to sign a document of abdication that relinquished all her future claims to the throne. Following this, she was subject to a public trial before a military tribunal in her former throne room. Convicted of having knowledge of a royalist plot, LiliE9;uokalani was fined $5000 and sentenced to five years in prison and hard labor."[2] As I have stated, and proved, this has nothing to do with "The monarchy ruled without the full consent of the governed and makes this government just as illegitimate as the later governments." As the 1893 Constitution was voted down, but not by the Monarchy. We are debating the legal status of the "State of Hawaii", not the legal status of Hawaii, either way though, Hawaii is fine. "Just because something was against the law in the 1800s does not make it morally wrong. There was a lot wrong with the law back then. My opponent should be comparing the ethics of the Monarchy, the Republic, and the annexation."Suppose someone stole your car, forged documents and sold it to someone else. Does that new "owner" own the car? Suppose the new "owner" then gave it to someone else. Does that new, new "owner" own the car? Now suppose the original thief confesses to the crime about how he unlawfully obtained (stole) the car. Who owns the car now? Is it the person most recently in possession of the car, or you, the person from whom it was initially stolen? Of course, according to common sense and common law, the answer is: You! Since the title of the car never lawfully changed hands to anyone else, you are still the lawful owner. I do not need to compare anything about the Monarchy, and the annexation and the republic established by Americans."Did people get to vote for their Queen?"The Kingdom of Hawaii does not have an elective monarchy[3], but simply an hereditary monarchy[4]. So the simple answer is, no. But I don't see how this is relevant."What should have happened is that we should have demanded that they allow their people to vote on joining us. If we were in 1900 I would have agreed with my opponent and proposed that we leave the nation."I appreciate you agreeing with me, Con. "However, it is not 1900. It is 2014. Now the population regards itself as American and is no less patriotic than the rest of our great nation. Its joining the union has resulted in a must greater level of prosperity for the nation. So while the ethical groups of its joining us are shaky, overall good has come from it so in retrospect this action is generally good."The Hawaiian population certainly does not regard itself as "American", nor does the Hawaiians want anything to do with the tyrants in the Kingdom of Hawaii as I have already proved. "I will agree that in 1898 they were against annexation. My opponent makes the claim that only 35% of Hawaiians voted for statehood. However, according to my opponent's own sources 77% who voted, voted yes and only 5% only 8,000 individuals voted no with 18% abstaining and voting on different issues. This 35% number erroneously includes all those who decided not to vote. By that measure, since only half of eligible voters vote in US elections, no recent president has gotten more than 35% of the vote of eligible voters.""I'm sorry, but what was voted on? Why was the option of independence not on the ballot? Violating the obligations under the UN Charter, a treaty agreement and "supreme law of the land" under Article VI Section 2 of the US Constitution, is also a violation of the US Constitution itself. The United States government did not uphold their "sacred trust obligation." The vote for statehood was not a valid exercise of self-determination and decolonization and has no validity in international law. Any U.S. citizen who had resided in the islands for a year was allowed to vote, which included large numbers of American military servicemen and their families, who were essentially the occupation force that had illegally held Hawaii since the admittedly unlawful annexation in 1898. Native Hawaiians would not have been allowed to vote if they refused to become American citizens. Immigrants from other countries who were not American citizens were not allowed to vote."[5] "Even if this 35% number is correct in 1959, this feeling does not represent the Hawaii of today which is a much different place. Hawaiians are just as patriotic as other Americans and there is no evidence that a majority of them want to leave the union. If my opponent wants to kick them out the union can some data be presented showing that they even want it?" Again, I will provide you proof that the Hawaiians want the United States to vacate.[6] "I would totally support letting Hawaii vote on secession right now"I appreciate you agreeing with me, Con. Yet when are you going to dispute the legal status of the "State of Hawaii", this is about the United States needing to vacate.Conclusion: So far Con has done nothing but debate the history of Hawaii, make false claims without backing them up, and has agreed with me. I urge Con to dispute the legal status of the "State of Hawaii", if Con cannot do this, then it's clear that the United States has been illegally occupying a country and needs to vacate. "At the close of World War I, the Commission on the Responsibility of the Authors of the War and on Enforcement of Penalties classified the following types of war crimes capable of being committed by military and civilians (American Journal of International Law, vol. 14, p. 114 (1920)):"[7] Usurpation of sovereignty during occupation; Deportation of civilians; Compulsory enlistment of soldiers among the inhabitants of occupied territory; Denationalizing the inhabitants of occupied territory; Confiscation of property; Exaction of illegitimate or of exorbitant contributions and requisitions; Wanton devastation and destruction of religious, charitable, educational and historical buildings and monuments. Sources:[1] http://goo.gl...[2] http://goo.gl...[3] http://goo.gl...[4] http://goo.gl...[5] http://goo.gl...[6] http://goo.gl..., http://goo.gl..., http://goo.gl...[7] http://goo.gl...