Talk:Legal status of Hawaii/Archive 5

message: Jere:I took this part out because 1) I believe this has been authoritatively dismissed by a number of legal bodies, and 2) the whole point of the sovereignty movement is the denial of any final authority.  No sovereignty activist has ever, to my knowledge, indicated a court or deliberative body, national or international, to whom they would accept a negative decision from.  Not sure who said it, but something along the lines of, "no causes are truly lost, because no causes are truly won". --JereKrischel 09:46, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

message: Jere:I think you did a good job catching my use of the weasel word "although" - making it two sentences helps make it more NPOV.  However, the matter has been settled with finality by international and U.S. national legal bodies on several occasions - although again, not to the satisfaction of activists.
1) The Morgan Report, February 26, 1894, followed by the Turpie Resolution of May 31, 1894, established by congressional investigation and findings of fact (as opposed to the Apology Resolution "whereas" clauses), the lack of involvement of the U.S. in the Hawaiian Revolution, and the legitimacy of the Provisional Government;
2) In a 1903 criminal case, Territory of Hawaii v. Mankichi, 190 U.S. 197 (1903) the U.S. Supreme Court noted that "the status of the islands and the powers of their provisional government were measured by the Newlands resolution[.]" That point was made even more forcefully in a separate opinion in the case filed by by Justice Harlan. Justice Harlan disagreed with the court on a different issue which concerned Hawaiian law as to jury trials, but on the issue of the validity of the Newlands resolution, he agreed fully with the majority, stating, "By the resolution, the annexation of the Hawaiian Islands became complete, and the object of the proposed treaty, that 'those islands should be incorporated into the United States as an integral part thereof, and under its sovereignty' was accomplished.";
3) In 1910, Liliuokalani's personal claims to the crown lands were decided invalid, citing Hawaiian Kingdom law and jurisprudence;
4) Both the Provisional Government and Republic of Hawaii were internationally recognized as the legitimate government of Hawaii by every nation that had any diplomatic relationship with the Hawaiian Kingdom (since there was no "international legal body" in 1893/1894, this serves as a stand-in);
5) In 1959, following the Statehood vote and Statehood, the United Nations removed Hawaii from the list of non-self-governing territories.
This does get into another troubling area, of course - 1893 was before the League of Nations and before the United Nations existed, so even defining an international legal body with jurisdiction over the actions of that year is problematic - certainly, the U.N. couldn't re-adjudicate the American Civil War, or Kamehameha's conquest of the Islands, but in some ways that is what is being asked for by some sovereignty activists.
My question is this, and I think if you answer it honestly you'll see my point - what judicial body would sovereignty activists accept a final statement from?  If the ICJ ruled tomorrow that Hawaii was legally a State of the United States, would it be accepted?  If the Supreme Court ruled tomorow that Hawaii was legally a State of the United States, would it be accepted?
The whole reason why this debate exists is because activsts do not see any setback as final.  To imply that there have been no decisions on the world-stage regarding this matter is pushing POV.
I hope that makes sense - and again, thanks for catching my "although" weasel word.  Hopefully it's starting to read better --JereKrischel 19:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "with finality"