The United States should vacate the Kingdom of Hawaii

"I regard all forms of government that does not derive itself from the consent of the governed as illegitimate. The queen ruled without an election by the people so I do not feel any sorrow or disagreement if she is deposed."Your opinions are irrelevant to this debate. You clearly don't understand how Monarchy works. "It is true that the queen wanted a smaller property requirement so more natives could vote for people on the legislature. But at the same time she wanted to increase her own power relative to the legislature so really she was not necessarily in favor of more power to the people"Again, your opinions are irrelevant to this debate. "She tried to overthrow the constitution when she could not get it amended legally. What she was trying to do was illegal and violated the power of the legislature. That reduces the legitimacy she has." I have read the link you provided me, and it states "Kalakaua’s sister, Liliuokalani, took the throne upon his death in 1891 and soon began working on a replacement to the Bayonet Constitution that would restore the monarch’s power and give only Hawaiian subjects the right to vote. After failing to get her new constitution through the legislature, Liliuokalani planned to enact it by royal fiat on January 14, 1893. Although she ended up deferring action on the advice of her handpicked cabinet, 13 men of American, British and German descent became so concerned about their future business and political prospects that they met at a Honolulu law office and arranged to depose her."The Queen tried to give the Hawaiian subjects the right to vote, but failed when it came to the legislature, so she give her "authoritative decree, sanction, and order: a royal fiat."[1] I do not see any problem here, the legislature clearly didn't want the Hawaiian subjects to be given the right to vote... The Queen did the right thing. Though I don't see how this is relevant to the legal status of the "State of Hawaii". "The problem with this analogy is that the people of Hawaii are not property like the car is. Sure they were ruled by a Queen but that does make this rule legitimate. Today, the car (people of Hawaii) do not want independence so there is no reason to give it back to the illegitimate previous owner (the Monarchy)."Again, I have already provided you with the fact that the Hawaiians do want independence. The country is property to the the Hawaiians, not to the United States. These are clear reasons you are trying to deny. "I would like my opponent to back up the claim that the population does not regard itself as American."Are you just going to ignore the fact that the Hawaiians have demanded the United States to give back their kingdom and sovereignty when the United States recently asked them for their vote on this issue? I have provided you proof with this...."Probably because such a measure was not seriously being considered given this was at a time when 95% of those who did vote on the Statehood measure voted yes." How many times do I have to repeat myself? The United States overthrow the Queen Liliuokalani, and for what is seen as a prolonged military occupation beginning in 1898 with the annexation of the Republic of Hawaii to the United States, and continuing until the present day. The movement generally views both the overthrow and annexation as illegal, and holds the U.S. government responsible for these actions. The historical and legal basis for these claims is one of considerable dispute."We talked about this. Just because something is against international law does not mean it is wrong. I prefer to follow the laws of this nation not international law if we are to dogmatically stick to a purely legal way of thinking about morality." If something is against international law, like invading a country and its sovereignty, does not mean it's wrong?! Your laughable statement is irrelevant to this debate."Please present the proof in text rather than just listing three references. The first reference only gives accounts of meetings of a few hundred activists who want Hawaiian independence. No polling data or proof is given that a majority want this."This is not up for public polling, this is between the United States and the Hawaiians, and all the Hawaiians spoke. I have already proved this.... Yet you seem to disregard this. "The second was a news article that argues for independence but nothing else. Since I was not a member of the site I could not read the article further. The third was another opinion piece that briefly mentioned meetings about independence. No evidence for majority consent is given."You clearly didn't read the news articles. "Native Hawaiians to Federal Government: Give Us Back Our Kingdom", this seems clear to me. In fact, the statement itself is evidence. Feel free to read up on this."I did not make false claims. My claims are backed up by my sources. I did more than just debate history. I also argued that there is no evidence that Hawaiians today want independence and being part of the US has benefited Hawaii. I agreed that annexing Hawaii in 1900 was the wrong thing to do but that does not mean I think we should abandon them today." Yes you did make false claims: Here are the following claims that I have successfully disputed: "At the time, the annexation of Hawaii was not in the people's favor but it was not in their disfavor either.", "With the strong history of American culture on the island today, it is unlikely that calls for complete independence will be taken seriously by the vast majority of its inhabitants.", "If my opponent wants change for Hawaii in the form of independence, I would like evidence people there even want it." Your claims were false, and some of them you didn't even bother to back up."I am not a lawyer. My political opinions come from morality and reason not just through legal interpretations. If there is no evidence Hawaiians want to leave, I do not care what your legal interpretation is. Hawaii stays."I have already proved that the Hawaiians want the United States to vacate their country. You may not care of the legal facts about Hawaii, but you have no right to continue on saying I'm wrong when I'm the one providing facts here. The simple fact is, the United States invaded a country, made Americans vote on it becoming a state, and denied the Hawaiians to have any say. 21,269 Native Hawaiians petitioned annexation.[2] The Hawaiian annexation was illegitimate, it's simple as that."In 1959, only 8,000 people voted against statehood and if they wanted independence so much they should have gotten far more votes out of 400,000 eligible voters. 55 years later Hawaiians are even split over whether tribes there should get legal recognition. Native Hawaiians only comprise 10-20% of the population there and that is where most of the small support for independence lies."I'm getting tired of repeating myself. "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." The statehood vote, both in terms of the question asked and the people who were allowed to vote, was in no way a valid act of self-determination, and did not legitimize the occupation. Hawaii has never legally been a state of the United States. The option of independence for Hawaii exists to this day, and the voices supporting this option are growing steadily.... I HAVE ALREADY PROVED THIS. Did the Hawaiians vote on this? No, it was the Americans who voted on this. My opponent is free to read updates about this issue: https://www.facebook.com...Conclusion:My opponent has made false claims, has refused to accept my sources of how the Hawaiians want the United States to leave, he has refused to debate the main point of this debate: The legal status of the "State of Hawaii". As I have proved the Kingdom of Hawaii should be vacated by the Americans as these UN resolutions clearly indicate that independence was not only an option at the time, it was the primary option under international principles and the fundamental inalienable right to self-determination, and specifically with regard to non-self-governing territories under article 73 of the UN Charter. Not only was the option of independence not on the ballot, it was not even discussed, while statehood was actively propogandized with public funds, and American political ideals were indoctrinated through the schools. In truth it was the United States' obligation to fully inform the Hawaiian people and assist in the attainment of the goal of independence, not to extend their manifest destiny thousands miles across international waters. 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. It's a shame that Con could only debate history and his opinions, yet refused to answer any of my arguments about the legal status.Sources:[1] http://goo.gl...[2] http://goo.gl...