PDA

View Full Version : So Long No. 50? Hawaiian Senator working towards Hawaiian independence from the US



jmcclain19
08-18-2005, 04:36 AM
I have to say, this story took me completely off guard

Quotes from Hawaii Sen. Akaka

http://hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?3c4d4c7e-0d8f-4004-bd6e-c464165a139e



Senator DANIEL AKAKA (Democrat, Hawaii): It creates a government-to-government relationship with the United States. KASTE: Democratic Senator Dan Akaka, himself a native, wants Congress to let Hawaiians re-establish their national identity. He says his bill would give them a kind of legal parity with tribal governments on the mainland, but he says this sovereignty could eventually go further, perhaps even leading to outright independence.

Sen. AKAKA: That could be. As far as what's going to happen at the other end, I'm leaving it up to my grandchildren and great-grandchildren.

Two former Senators were worried enough by the bill to pen an oped piece for the Wall Street Journal

http://opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110007117

Question is, does the Senate even have the Constitutional right to go ahead and do this, elevate a State from statehood status to Tribal Government on the way to independence?

Unassisted
08-18-2005, 09:24 AM
Apparently the 1993 apology issued by the Federal government for the overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy set this in motion. We have that Congress to thank.

The native Hawaiians have a powerful argument, but at first glance, it's hard to fathom this Congress lifting a finger to enable Hawaii to secede. It could well be forced in the courts, though. Those Hawaiian military bases are too strategic to abandon, and I'm sure the rental payments to a Hawaiian national government would be astronomical.

OTOH, Hawaii is one of the most dependably-blue states, so letting the state secede would strengthen the Republican majority in Congress. Maybe the GOP is quietly bolstering this movement?

REDREAD
08-18-2005, 12:40 PM
I doubt they let it happen.

If you let the Hawaiians go independent, what's to stop other areas of the country from lobbying to be independent? South Carolina tried it once, and it wasn't met with very favorably :)

It isn't too far fetched to think that another part of the country would want independence. Let's say a 8 county region in Ohio declared independence. They could form their own country without any national debt, no national income tax, no burden of supporting the military, etc. They could reduce their "national" government to be much smaller and efficient than a state government. They could even do things like lower the drinking age, legalize gambling, etc to bring a lot of money into the region. Heck, no state/federal taxes (or reduced taxes) alone would be a good reason to move there.

KronoRed
08-18-2005, 01:43 PM
Let em go.

Then invade ;)

Unassisted
08-18-2005, 05:23 PM
I doubt they let it happen.

If you let the Hawaiians go independent, what's to stop other areas of the country from lobbying to be independent? South Carolina tried it once, and it wasn't met with very favorably :)I think the geographic separation of over 1,000 miles of Pacific Ocean makes Hawaii's secession more feasible than any of the lower 48, but I doubt it will happen, too. My guess is Congress will boost the amount of Federal $$$ the state receives to make this go away.

registerthis
08-18-2005, 05:24 PM
Let em go.

Then invade ;)I think you mean "liberate". ;)

ochre
08-18-2005, 05:27 PM
I doubt they let it happen.

If you let the Hawaiians go independent, what's to stop other areas of the country from lobbying to be independent? South Carolina tried it once, and it wasn't met with very favorably :)

It isn't too far fetched to think that another part of the country would want independence. Let's say a 8 county region in Ohio declared independence. They could form their own country without any national debt, no national income tax, no burden of supporting the military, etc. They could reduce their "national" government to be much smaller and efficient than a state government. They could even do things like lower the drinking age, legalize gambling, etc to bring a lot of money into the region. Heck, no state/federal taxes (or reduced taxes) alone would be a good reason to move there.
numbered bank accounts. and yodellers. lots of yodellers.

Reds/Flyers Fan
08-20-2005, 11:51 AM
Osama bin Laden's grand plan for Sept. 11 was to start in motion the process where the U.S. states would fight with each other in a Civil War of sorts. His limited understanding of this country led him to believe that some states would close their borders while others would form alliances against the government.

Now Hawaii wants this? Geesh :rolleyes:

CrackerJack
08-20-2005, 12:39 PM
Osama bin Laden's grand plan for Sept. 11 was to start in motion the process where the U.S. states would fight with each other in a Civil War of sorts. His limited understanding of this country led him to believe that some states would close their borders while others would form alliances against the government.

Now Hawaii wants this? Geesh :rolleyes:

Hmm, not so sure about that. Bin Laden and his ilk want our military bases and people out of traditionally Islamic countries, and he wants us to quit supporting Israel with money and weapons.

If he can divide people here with catastrophic events, as it relates to our foreign policy and executive administration, then that's all the better.

Hawaii's senator would be doing this regardless of 9/11 I think.

Unassisted
08-20-2005, 04:51 PM
I don't believe that the loss of Hawaii would put the republic in any danger. The military bases are strategic, but I doubt that a Hawaiian national government would turn down the rent money to keep them there or resent the security they provide against an invasion.

If the natives want autonomy, I don't see why heels need to be dug in to keep them in the union. It's not like there are other states lining up to secede behind them. Hawaii is a special case - and it's over 1,000 miles away from the nearest neighboring states.

KronoRed
08-20-2005, 04:55 PM
But..we can't have 49 states! uneven numbers suck! ;)

Add DC? :D

RedsBaron
08-20-2005, 06:33 PM
Somewhere Jefferson Davis says: "Right On!"

dman
08-20-2005, 06:39 PM
Why not just let Hawaii become like Guam and the Northern Marianas Islands, just become a U.S. Territory as opposed to a state?

RFS62
08-20-2005, 07:38 PM
Being a native West Virginian, I've often thought that we should secede from the union, declare war on the US, and immediately surrender. The US government would then come in with tons of federal aid and rebuild us. Things would be better than ever.

pedro
08-20-2005, 07:40 PM
Being a native West Virginian, I've often thought that we should secede from the union, declare war on the US, and immediately surrender. The US government would then come in with tons of federal aid and rebuild us. Things would be better than ever.

Do you really think that a soveriegn WV could resist invading Kentucky if given teh chance?

RFS62
08-20-2005, 07:41 PM
Do you really think that a soveriegn WV could resist invading Kentucky if given teh chance?


Good point.

Oh well.

KronoRed
08-20-2005, 08:03 PM
Do you really think that a sovereign WV could resist invading Kentucky if given teh chance?

Would we notice a WV invasion? I'm thinking..no ;)

RFS62
08-20-2005, 08:06 PM
Would we notice a WV invasion? I'm thinking..no ;)


Oh, you'd notice it. You'd notice when we take your women-folk and your whiskey and make you learn how to drive.

KronoRed
08-20-2005, 08:13 PM
You can take the whiskey and it's those people north of the river who can't drive :D

Deepred05
08-24-2005, 04:10 AM
This is about casinos. Tax free casinos.

savafan
09-02-2005, 03:57 PM
http://www.nationalreview.com/script/printpage.p?ref=/lopez/lopez200508300807.asp

August 30, 2005, 8:07 a.m.
Hawaiian-Nation Bound
Our 50th state is set to become a race-based state.

Martin Luther King Jr., famously dreamed that his children would "one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."

Three decades later, at least in Hawaii, that dream is imploding.

In 2005, Sen. Daniel Akaka (D., Hawaii), is pressing for a future where his "grandchildren and great-grandchildren" may be allowed to establish a nation, born out of what was once Hawaii entirely race-based. Though the senator says he himself is not a proponent of independence itself, the trajectory he'd put his home state on may end there.

Unlikely as it seems now, your grandchildren may one day need a passport to sunbathe in Maui. And the starter pistol that set the 50th state on the road to a wholly un-American independence day would have been fired by the United States Congress.

The Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act of 2005, now sitting on Capitol Hill, promises to establish a dangerous precedent. The bill would create a tribe consisting of direct descendants of those indigenous to the Hawaiian islands, wherever they now are. The bill, proponents say, would allow Native Hawaiians to "exercise their right to self-determination by selecting another form of government, including free association or total independence."

Although it's easy to assume that this is exactly how Native Americans operate in the United States, the analogy doesn't fly. Indian tribes generally existed before statehood as tribes, and continued living, working and associating as tribes. There is no such recognized Native Hawaiian population. In a state where intermarriage is high, there is no active, mainstream "Native Hawaiian community" clamoring for independence. Congress, on the slim chance the act is adopted, would have manufactured it and for no good reason.

The move is stunning given the lip service we collectively give to equal rights. As former Department of Justice lawyer (my NRO colleague) Shannen Coffin pointed out in recent House testimony, in this bill "racial discrimination by Congress is the first step in the formation of the Native Hawaiian government." The bill "specifically defines, as a matter of federal law, the racial group eligible to determine the governmental organization and membership of the Native Hawaiian government."

As a paper from the Republican Policy Committee in the Senate puts it: "Federal Indian law should not be manipulated into a racial spoils system. If Congress can create a government based on blood alone, then the Constitution's commitment to equality under the law means very little. Rather than putting that constitutional question to the Supreme Court, Congress should answer the question itself and defeat this legislation."

Ironically, despite the current push, at the time Hawaiians voted to join the union in 1959, the territory took pride in its diversity, that it was a "melting pot." And, in fact, even under a monarchy, Hawaii was never a race-based entity. As one historian described the kingdom: "The policy being followed looked to the creation of an Hawaiian state by the fusion of native and foreign ideas and the union of native and foreign personnel, bringing into being an Hawaiian body politic in which all elements, both Polynesian and haole, should work together for the common good under the mild and enlightened rule of an Hawaiian king."

Even if you are continental-U.S.-bound with no hope or desire to sit on the sun-drenched sands of Waikiki, you should care about this bill. As Coffin told Congress, "The bill sets a terrible precedent of racial separateness and, if followed in other instances, would balkanize the American people."

In a 1995 case, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia warned: "To pursue the concept of racial entitlement even for the most admirable and benign of purposes is to reinforce and preserve for future mischief the way of thinking that produced race slavery, race privilege and race hatred. In the eyes of the government, we are just one race here. We are American."

The Hawaii bill is unconstitutional relying on racial voting restrictions that fly in the face of the 15th Amendment and likely to get bogged down in courts for years to come, if passed. But before we even get to the judiciary determining its legality, something demeaning would have already happened: The Congress of the United States would have embraced racial mandates.

"The bill," says Peter Kirsanow, a member of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, "is the triumph of the politics of racial identity and ethnic pleading over the American creed. It's the logical conclusion to multiculturalism run amok the balkanization of America. And it sets a very troubling precedent for further ethnic separatism."

And yet, with the support of some prominent Republicans, including the governor of the state, Congress is currently set to set out an "Aloha" welcome mat to a race-based Hawaii.

Ask Greg Brady what happens when you mess with ancient, bad taboos. You don't want to go there, Congress.

GAC
09-05-2005, 08:23 AM
Being a native West Virginian, I've often thought that we should secede from the union, declare war on the US, and immediately surrender. The US government would then come in with tons of federal aid and rebuild us. Things would be better than ever.

For cryin' out loud! Ya got Senator Byrd who does that already! How many more monuments do you need to this guy? :p:

I don't think we should Hawaii secede simply because we'd have to change all those flags.

Besides - this is the state that gave us Hawaii 5-0 and Hawaiin Eye!

Book'em Dano!

http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/P/htmlP/policeprogra/policeprograIMAGE/policeprogra3.jpg

http://epguides.com/HawaiianEye/cast.jpg

Unassisted
09-05-2005, 04:21 PM
http://www.nationalreview.com/script/printpage.p?ref=/lopez/lopez200508300807.asp

Ask Greg Brady what happens when you mess with ancient, bad taboos. You don't want to go there, Congress.Maybe Congress should follow Greg Brady's lead and put the tiki back in the cave?