Wednesday, January 7, 2009

Testing for Live stream

TESTING - sorry folks, especially those of you who have subscribed. I'm currently using the blog for testing purposes.

Posted by at

1 comment:

  1. TaneWed Jan 07, 11:06:00 PM PST

    Mahalo to Derrick ma for putting this out. The best presentation was made by the surprise-guest, former Governor Waihee. His anaylsis and synopsis of the situation brought clarity and should be the explicit point for Kupa'aina. This clarity brought out two points of contention together where it could unify on and that is a discussion within the state on the state's public policy according to its constitution.

    Mr. Tam may be a nice guy but was the weakest panelist which I couldn't follow much of what he said. I presume his point was using wrong analogies and case references that obfuscate the issues.

    Sen. Hee was hot and cold, but I liked what he said about working it legislatively by placing bills that would curtail blatant wantonness in selling properties without high regard for that option and make it more difficult to sell lands as a last resort.. I prefer the other proposal of legislatively prohibiting the sale of those lands.

    Mr. Meheula and Bennet were sitting on a predictible powder keg. Taking it to the federal level, opened Pandora's box and the scene of the crime. Mr. Meheula brought up some good points that tempered the climate of discussion. The history, apoloxy, trust power and the genealogy of trust issues and state reconciliation and fiduciary or title duties were good pointers.

    Bennett, on the other hand, did a spin on laws and issues, while being very selective to bolster his position. At points, he contradicted himself; he was the most inflamatory panelist.

    Most missed the faux pas; the Newlands Resolution was an unlawful attempt to make what was illegal and contrary to the U.S. constituion, valid and legal. Nonetheless, it was unlawful. Twice the treaty submitted by the American traitors to congress was rejected. Pursuant to the U.S. Laws and Constitution, a treaty can only be ratified by 2/3rd of the senate in attendance. This didn't happen. A resolution is "symbolic" as he stated, and is passed by a simple majority and the president's signature makes it law. Thus there was no treaty of annexation that was ratified. A resolution only has power within its own borders and doesn't extend to a foreign country as Hawai'i is. Ku'e petitions of 1897 , a form of plebiscite spoke for the citizens was ignored, but that's why congress rejected the treaty sent to them, it had no standing. Inouye disclaimed what was evident to several senators, like Slade Gorton who believed the only logical consequence was Hawai'i's total independence. His arguments are premised on a fraud which invalidates his arguments. Casereferences since 1823 is then void and irrelevant. The 14th Amendment was created for the Blacks and no other ethnic group; it was specific about that.

    Hawaiians have both a moral and legal claim contrary to what Bennet expounds on. Mahalo again for an interesting evening. Kudos to Gov. Waihe'e; he was excellent!

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)