Tournament Round 3
Semperfortis V TLomon
"The State of Hawaii should have a unique right to secede from the United States, if it so chooses".
Semper’s Opening:
First and foremost let me take a moment and express my appreciation to TheVagabond for his continued unrelenting support for us here in the Debate
Forum. The work he does for us is nothing short of amazing.
I want to also thank TLomon for joining me here in this tournament and wish him the best of luck. Let’s make this one for the history books, shall
we?
Now my opening:
Proposition:
Does the State of Hawaii have the “Right” to secede from the “voluntary union” that is the United States; whether Hawaii is unique or
not?
I will show you here, on this debate that they in fact do.
I will also show you numerous reasons that Hawaii’s very uniqueness makes the proposition of secession even more applicable and justified.
During this debate I am going to present to you factual commentary from the framers of the Constitution of the United States that directly indicates
their support for secession by any state that so chooses.
We will explore together the unique history of Hawaii, before Cook’s “discovery” in 1778 and after. You will see that Native Hawaiian People
have been attempting to revive their own uniqueness as sovereign peoples and take their place in the International Community; all under the yoke of a
Nation so very far away and only remotely interested in Hawaiian growth.
Together we will look at other disenfranchised peoples and their struggles for sovereignty, some successful, others not so much. We will compare these
to the Hawaiian People and you will see the correlation.
More directly and perhaps more importantly, I will show you that Hawaii has the absolute right to secede from the United States if the
people of Hawaii choose to do so.
I will also prove to you that prior to the intervention and invasion of the United States, Hawaii had a legitimate government, a Monarchy recognized
by the international community, which was forced from power under threat of arms.
Remember this is not a debate over whether or not Hawaii would be better off upon seceding. We are also not debating over whether or not Hawaii will
secede. Only that they could if their people so choose to do so.
Background:
Hawaii became the 50th State in the Union on March 18, 1959; however they were annexed into the Union as a territory on July 7th, 1898. This is
all common knowledge and a matter of historical fact.
What is most shocking is that our “annexing” of Hawaii was more a matter of invasion and conquering, than some peaceful matter that
everyone agreed to. In fact on January 16th, 1893 a Company of United States Marines and two Companies of Naval Sailors, descended upon Hawaii and
under the guise of protecting American lives, set up fortified defensive positions and was the catalyst for the then Queen of Hawaii, the legitimate
ruler, to abdicate Her throne under protest.
We will examine her abdication, her protest and her grandiose words of hope for her nation.
In essence we invaded a sovereign nation with a uniformed military and under an invasion footing, terminated a legitimate government and established
our own.
It is a matter of historical fact that Great Briton invaded the Island Nation, forced the abdication of the then current King in 1843. Then upon
introspection and evaluation by British Admiral Richard Thomas, the invasion was repudiated and the King restored to his throne.
I will show you that this is truly the uniqueness that establishes the Hawaiian right to secession if the native population desires it.
As this debate progresses, we will examine in far more depth and detail, the unique history of Hawaii and our involvement in that history. We will
compare The Hawaiian peoples struggle for sovereignty with those of other peoples that have been similarly oppressed into silence.
Currently the Hawaiian people are becoming more and more vocal in their calls for independence. They are investigating and testing international law
as it relates to their unique position and history. They have a “beef’ with the United States, and I will show you exactly why.
Summation:
The Constitution of the United States of America gives full and unfettered power to the People. This is a fact. That power extends authority and
authorizes the people the power even to refuse the Union and secede from that union. It MUST or the very base concept of a free nation
dissolves under a forced regime of compliance and membership to a “club” no one wants to be a member of.
Hawaii was a Nation, with a ruler, system of laws and an independent government. We took that from them. We have in our Constitution, given the power
of self government to the people. If those people choose to no longer be a part of this Nation, we must comply with and grant their wishes.
In fact:
"The State of Hawaii should have a unique right to secede from the United States, if it so chooses".
Socratic Option:
Question #1
Do you think the United States had the right to forcibly remove a sovereign nation and replace it?
Question #2
Do you believe that as the Hawaiian people had an established government prior to our intervention, they should now be allowed independent rule if
they so desire?
References:
History of Hawaii
Greetings From Independent Hawaii
Thank you
Semper
Round 3. Semperfortis v TLomon: Hawaiian Secession, page 1
privacy
Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 3 times
ATS Members have flagged this thread 3 times
reply posted on 18-3-2008 @ 08:59 PM by TLomon
Hello, my name is Turlo Lomon, aka TLomon, and I will be arguing the con side of "The State of Hawaii should have a unique right to
secede from the United States, if it so chooses".
To start off, I'd like to give thanks to The Vagabond for all the work he does here. Some one has to do it, and I am really glad it isn't me. I'd also like to give thanks to Semperfortis, my esteemed opponent - mostly for actually posting. Well, now that is all over with, on to my opening statement.
A Brief History of Hawaii
In 1778, James Cook, a British Explorer, plotted the geograhical location of Sandwich Islands (named in honor of John Montagu, the 4th Earl of Sandwich). This discovery led to the immigration of European and American settlers. Sure, we don't use the name now, but it took almost 100 years for Hawaii to be used.
In 1810, the first Hawaiian monarch united the islands. It is important to note that this was a constitutional monarch, with equal power to the king (or queen), legistlative, and judicial bodies. The last monarch was removed from her throne in 1893 as a direct result of trying to change the constitution she swore to uphold. This is all documented in the Morgan Report. When you think about it, she was a dictator in the making.
The United States, in order to prevent civil unrest and protect American lives, had no choice but to annex Hawaii as a territory. This was not done until after diplomatic attempts failed with the president of the provisional government. It is important to note that the government in charge was not recognized by the diposed queen, let alone the rest of the world. Hawaii was without a formal government.
On March, 1959, the Hawaii Admission Act was approved by both houses of Congress and signed by President Eisenhower. This provided for Hawaii to have the option of statehood. On June 27, 1959, it was voted on by the populace of Hawaii. The options were to become a state or remain a territory. It passed by a landslide margin of 94%. Hawaii was added to the United States of America as the 50th state on August 21, 1959.
I am sure specific details will be covered in greater depth as our debate continues.
What's the Law Say?
In 1869, the United States Supreme Court heard the case of Texas v. White. The relevant part of the case held that the Constitution of the United States forbid states to secede from the United States of America, and that any acts of legislature passed within seceding states to this effect were null and void.
My opponent would like us to believe otherwise, but the law is clear. He indicates the constitution allows secession, yet it has already been proven it does not. His argument simply does not hold water.
Questions
Although it was my understanding that the Socratic portion of the debate did not occur during the opening statements, I have no objection in answering my opponent's questions.
Trick question. The United States did not forcibly remove a sovereign nation. The queen did that work herself. They did remove an unrecognized government to protect American lives and calm civil unrest.
Trick question. The Hawaiian government collapsed through their own (mis)deeds before we annexed it. Now that they are a state, the Constitution speaks for itself.
To start off, I'd like to give thanks to The Vagabond for all the work he does here. Some one has to do it, and I am really glad it isn't me. I'd also like to give thanks to Semperfortis, my esteemed opponent - mostly for actually posting. Well, now that is all over with, on to my opening statement.
A Brief History of Hawaii
In 1778, James Cook, a British Explorer, plotted the geograhical location of Sandwich Islands (named in honor of John Montagu, the 4th Earl of Sandwich). This discovery led to the immigration of European and American settlers. Sure, we don't use the name now, but it took almost 100 years for Hawaii to be used.
In 1810, the first Hawaiian monarch united the islands. It is important to note that this was a constitutional monarch, with equal power to the king (or queen), legistlative, and judicial bodies. The last monarch was removed from her throne in 1893 as a direct result of trying to change the constitution she swore to uphold. This is all documented in the Morgan Report. When you think about it, she was a dictator in the making.
The United States, in order to prevent civil unrest and protect American lives, had no choice but to annex Hawaii as a territory. This was not done until after diplomatic attempts failed with the president of the provisional government. It is important to note that the government in charge was not recognized by the diposed queen, let alone the rest of the world. Hawaii was without a formal government.
On March, 1959, the Hawaii Admission Act was approved by both houses of Congress and signed by President Eisenhower. This provided for Hawaii to have the option of statehood. On June 27, 1959, it was voted on by the populace of Hawaii. The options were to become a state or remain a territory. It passed by a landslide margin of 94%. Hawaii was added to the United States of America as the 50th state on August 21, 1959.
I am sure specific details will be covered in greater depth as our debate continues.
What's the Law Say?
In 1869, the United States Supreme Court heard the case of Texas v. White. The relevant part of the case held that the Constitution of the United States forbid states to secede from the United States of America, and that any acts of legislature passed within seceding states to this effect were null and void.
My opponent would like us to believe otherwise, but the law is clear. He indicates the constitution allows secession, yet it has already been proven it does not. His argument simply does not hold water.
Questions
Although it was my understanding that the Socratic portion of the debate did not occur during the opening statements, I have no objection in answering my opponent's questions.
Question #1
Do you think the United States had the right to forcibly remove a sovereign nation and replace it?
Trick question. The United States did not forcibly remove a sovereign nation. The queen did that work herself. They did remove an unrecognized government to protect American lives and calm civil unrest.
Question #2
Do you believe that as the Hawaiian people had an established government prior to our intervention, they should now be allowed independent rule if they so desire?
Trick question. The Hawaiian government collapsed through their own (mis)deeds before we annexed it. Now that they are a state, the Constitution speaks for itself.
reply posted on 19-3-2008 @ 12:05 AM by semperfortis
Tournament Round 3
Semperfortis V TLomon
"The State of Hawaii should have a unique right to secede from the United States, if it so chooses".
Semper’s Reply 1 :
Rebuttal:
My opponent starts his post as if we are to believe that Cook, the European and American settlers were responsible for establishing a native population. Of course this is not true in the least.
Hawaii History
Thus we know for a fact that there were native people inhabiting Hawaii before our intervention.
As I stated in my opening, Hawaii had in place a sovereign governing body prior to our invasion. I am pleased that you agree as it establishes perfectly that the United States had no internationally legal basis for invading and overthrowing the Hawaiian Government that was in place at the time.
This is also completely false.
Actually in 1891 when the King died in San Francisco, Queen Lili'uokalani was already running the country and doing a wonderful job. She possessed the power to begin and most likely win an armed conflict in order to force her rule and establish a firm constitution, but declined because of her concerns over the almost assured death and destruction this would cause.
On January 17th, in 1893, she surrendered under protest.
Enter the United States Marines.
No choice?
It would appear that even the then United States President would disagree with you.
Hawaii History
As you read and judge this debate, remember that one FACT first and foremost. The President of the United States concluded that the ruling queen of Hawaii had been overthrown by force.
A sovereign government overthrown by the United States and that horrible, unethical mistake has never been remedied.
In fact on November 23, 1993, President Clinton signed the "Apology Resolution" (US Public Law 103-150) officially apologizing for invading and forcibly overthrowing the sovereign government of Hawaii.
It is a historical fact that we, the United States, forcibly took, overthrew and abolished a sovereign, established, working government.
That above all things gives Hawaii the unique right to secede from the United States if the people of Hawaii so choose.
Interesting legal precedent you have there.
However when examined closely one sees that the 5 to 3 decision at that time, was rendered by Supreme Court Justices all appointed by none less than President Lincoln himself. Controversial then, it remains so now.
See here:
Free Dictionary
This only further establishes the United States propensity for removing sovereign governments by force or legal manipulation and denying to her states the one single expression of ultimate freedom; to determine their own destiny, even to secede.
I have proven that this is not true using factual evidence as you may reference above.
I have also proven this to be completely untrue. Again, see above.
Proposition:
My opponent apparently intends upon trying to convince you of the validity of the United States actions in the forcible removable of the legal, sovereign government of Hawaii. I have given you the evidence that proves his premise is not only flawed, but completely false.
My opponent states that a legal decision by Supreme Court Justices appointed by a President that took a nation to war to prevent the very actions we are discussing, is proof there is no legal basis for Hawaii seceding from the United States.
Let us look at what the Main Author of the Constitution has to say in this regard.
Thomas Jefferson:
“If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation ... to a continuance in the union .... I have no hesitation in saying, 'Let us separate.”
More Jefferson:
"If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union, or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left to combat it."
Let’s look at some other quotes by the framers and founders:
Virginias Ratification Delegates
“The powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression."
In Federalist Paper 39, James Madison, the father of the Constitution, cleared up what "the people" meant, saying the proposed Constitution would be subject to ratification by the people, "not as individuals composing one entire nation, but as composing the distinct and independent States to which they respectively belong." In a word, states were sovereign; the federal government was a creation, an agent, a servant of the states.
Maryland Rep. Jacob M. Kunkel said, "Any attempt to preserve the Union between the States of this Confederacy by force would be impractical, and destructive of republican liberty."
The FACT is:
All quotes referenced:
Cap Mag
Socratic Question #1
Do you believe that the Founders of the Constitution would have so openly spoken of the states right of secession had they not intended for those states to have that right?
Summation:
The fact is if we truly live in a free country, then the right of the people in any state to secede can not be denied. The forcible occupation and removal of the Hawaiian sovereign government is a prime example of that very freedom being subjugated at the will of a single man.
The Civil war is another perfect example of this, yet shall remain a subject for another debate, only referenced here as example.
How can we say to the international community that we are a freedom cherishing country, unless the native people of Hawaii have the ultimate right to the determination of their own destiny?
We forcibly removed the government of Hawaii.
We instituted control over the native people of Hawaii under threat of force.
The native people of Hawaii absolutely have a most unique right to secede from the United States if the people of Hawaii so choose.
Thank you,
Semper
Semperfortis V TLomon
"The State of Hawaii should have a unique right to secede from the United States, if it so chooses".
Semper’s Reply 1 :
Rebuttal:
My opponent starts his post as if we are to believe that Cook, the European and American settlers were responsible for establishing a native population. Of course this is not true in the least.
The language of Hawaii and archaeological discoveries indicate that Hawaii was settled by two distinct waves of Polynesian migration. Cook himself knew that the original Polynesian discoverers had come from the South Pacific hundreds of years before his time.
Hawaii History
Thus we know for a fact that there were native people inhabiting Hawaii before our intervention.
In 1810, the first Hawaiian monarch united the islands. It is important to note that this was a constitutional monarch, with equal power to the king (or queen), legistlative, and judicial bodies.
As I stated in my opening, Hawaii had in place a sovereign governing body prior to our invasion. I am pleased that you agree as it establishes perfectly that the United States had no internationally legal basis for invading and overthrowing the Hawaiian Government that was in place at the time.
The last monarch was removed from her throne in 1893 as a direct result of trying to change the constitution she swore to uphold.
This is also completely false.
Actually in 1891 when the King died in San Francisco, Queen Lili'uokalani was already running the country and doing a wonderful job. She possessed the power to begin and most likely win an armed conflict in order to force her rule and establish a firm constitution, but declined because of her concerns over the almost assured death and destruction this would cause.
On January 17th, in 1893, she surrendered under protest.
Enter the United States Marines.
The United States, in order to prevent civil unrest and protect American lives, had no choice but to annex Hawaii as a territory.
No choice?
It would appear that even the then United States President would disagree with you.
President Cleveland's administration concluded that the monarchy had been overthrown by force with the complicity of the U.S. minister.
Hawaii History
As you read and judge this debate, remember that one FACT first and foremost. The President of the United States concluded that the ruling queen of Hawaii had been overthrown by force.
A sovereign government overthrown by the United States and that horrible, unethical mistake has never been remedied.
In fact on November 23, 1993, President Clinton signed the "Apology Resolution" (US Public Law 103-150) officially apologizing for invading and forcibly overthrowing the sovereign government of Hawaii.
It is a historical fact that we, the United States, forcibly took, overthrew and abolished a sovereign, established, working government.
That above all things gives Hawaii the unique right to secede from the United States if the people of Hawaii so choose.
In 1869, the United States Supreme Court heard the case of Texas v. White. The relevant part of the case held that the Constitution of the United States forbid states to secede from the United States of America, and that any acts of legislature passed within seceding states to this effect were null and void.
Interesting legal precedent you have there.
However when examined closely one sees that the 5 to 3 decision at that time, was rendered by Supreme Court Justices all appointed by none less than President Lincoln himself. Controversial then, it remains so now.
See here:
Chief Justice Chase (1864), Justice Swayne (1861), Justice Miller (1862), Justice Davis (1862), Justice Field, (1863) were all President Lincoln appointees who essentially validated the then extraordinary Executive position President Lincoln took of martially imposing the primacy of the Federal Government over the States without ballot, amendment or Convention.
Free Dictionary
This only further establishes the United States propensity for removing sovereign governments by force or legal manipulation and denying to her states the one single expression of ultimate freedom; to determine their own destiny, even to secede.
Socratic Answer 1 from TLomon
The United States did not forcibly remove a sovereign nation. The queen did that work herself. They did remove an unrecognized government to protect American lives and calm civil unrest.
I have proven that this is not true using factual evidence as you may reference above.
Socratic Question 2 from TLomon
The Hawaiian government collapsed through their own (mis)deeds before we annexed it. Now that they are a state, the Constitution speaks for itself.
I have also proven this to be completely untrue. Again, see above.
Proposition:
My opponent apparently intends upon trying to convince you of the validity of the United States actions in the forcible removable of the legal, sovereign government of Hawaii. I have given you the evidence that proves his premise is not only flawed, but completely false.
My opponent states that a legal decision by Supreme Court Justices appointed by a President that took a nation to war to prevent the very actions we are discussing, is proof there is no legal basis for Hawaii seceding from the United States.
Let us look at what the Main Author of the Constitution has to say in this regard.
Thomas Jefferson:
“If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation ... to a continuance in the union .... I have no hesitation in saying, 'Let us separate.”
More Jefferson:
"If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union, or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left to combat it."
Let’s look at some other quotes by the framers and founders:
Virginias Ratification Delegates
“The powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression."
In Federalist Paper 39, James Madison, the father of the Constitution, cleared up what "the people" meant, saying the proposed Constitution would be subject to ratification by the people, "not as individuals composing one entire nation, but as composing the distinct and independent States to which they respectively belong." In a word, states were sovereign; the federal government was a creation, an agent, a servant of the states.
Maryland Rep. Jacob M. Kunkel said, "Any attempt to preserve the Union between the States of this Confederacy by force would be impractical, and destructive of republican liberty."
The FACT is:
The Framers had a deathly fear of federal government abuse. They saw state sovereignty as a protection. That's why they gave us the Ninth and 10th Amendments. They saw secession as the ultimate protection against Washington tyranny.
All quotes referenced:
Cap Mag
Socratic Question #1
Do you believe that the Founders of the Constitution would have so openly spoken of the states right of secession had they not intended for those states to have that right?
Summation:
The fact is if we truly live in a free country, then the right of the people in any state to secede can not be denied. The forcible occupation and removal of the Hawaiian sovereign government is a prime example of that very freedom being subjugated at the will of a single man.
The Civil war is another perfect example of this, yet shall remain a subject for another debate, only referenced here as example.
How can we say to the international community that we are a freedom cherishing country, unless the native people of Hawaii have the ultimate right to the determination of their own destiny?
We forcibly removed the government of Hawaii.
We instituted control over the native people of Hawaii under threat of force.
The native people of Hawaii absolutely have a most unique right to secede from the United States if the people of Hawaii so choose.
Thank you,
Semper
reply posted on 20-3-2008 @ 04:30 PM by TLomon
My apologies for the delay on this post. Sometimes, life gets in the way of online commitments, and there just wasn't enough hours in the day to type
out the remainder of my draft.
History
To start, a clarification. It was never my intention to imply that Cook, the European, and American settlers were responsible for establishing a native population. It was an error of ommission on my part, and I apologize for any confusion in this regard. I am not contesting the indiginous population being present before it was "discovered", as it is a culture rich with traditions and culinary delights to this day. I will also like to clarify that some of the historical information I gave was slightly inaccurate, due to my (failed) attempt to condense way too much into too little of a space. I will expand upon my position in this post greatly.
To address the history of Hawaii past this point will require additional details. The site my opponent supplied details each of the monarchs who ruled over the years. However, several details, some covered by both that site and other numerous details from other references, need to be brought to light.
In 1839 and 1840, Kamehameha III created the Hawaiian Declaration of Right and Constitution for the Hawaiian Islands. This is important, as it changed the government from an absolute monarchy to a constitutional monarchy. Government was no longer the sole domain of the king, but rather split between the executive, legislative, and judicial offices of government. In effect, he gave a significant portion of his power to the people.
In addition, in 1848, he signed the Great Mahele into law. This allowed for land to be privately owned. Originally it was split between the king, the chiefs, and commoners, but since land is owned, it can be sold. Most of the land was sold to foreigners.
*Did the Native Hawaiians Have Aboriginal Title to the Crown and Government Lands?
In 1887, Lorrin Thurston, a Hawaiian born citizen, drafted the Constitution of the Kingdom of Hawaii. It is important to note that even though the constitution was imposed by militia force upon King Kalakaua, this was formed by a Hawaiian citizen. Hawaiian - not the United States. This change to the constitution, enacted by their legislative branch, removed most of the remaining power from the king and granted voting rights based on land ownership. In addition, it gave the United States the right to build a naval base at Pearl Harbor.
As my opponet stated, Lili'uokalani was effectively running the country before taking the throne in 1891 as Queen. However, how well she did at her job is a subject of debate. She claimed she received petitions from 2/3s of her subjects requesting her to change the constitution.
She attempted to do just that in 1893. The Committee of Safety was formed by voters dedicated to her removal from office. That's right, the voters, under their own constitution, dethroned the the monarchy. In effect, a civil war was started.
As my opponent stated earlier, "Enter the United States Marines". What exactly was the purpose of our marines being present? They took up positions at the United States Legation, Consulate, and Arion Hall. All United States interests, per the Hawaii Constitution and treaties signed with the United States. The Consulate is considered United States soil as far as international law is concerned, so let's take a look at the rest of my opponent's claims.
In 1893, the Blount Report indicated that the overthrow of the Queen was unlawful, and that United States Minister John Stevens had carried out unauthorized activites under false pretenses regarding the marines. This was an individual acting out of line. Not the United States Government. Even my opponent's own source shows this.
* The Blount Report
Also, it is important to note that just because someone makes an accusation, it does not make it true. Queen Lili'uokalani has several contradictions within her biography, Hawaii's Story by Hawaii's Queen when compared to other historical records. Why the conflict? I believe it is self apparent. Queen Lili'uokalani wanted to show herself, and her anscestors in a positive light, despite the evidence showing the contrary.
On with our history lesson. President Cleveland was against annexation of Hawaii. He stopped a treaty suggesting this right after coming into office. In December of 1983, the United States demanded the reinstatement of Queen Lili'ukalani to the throne. The provisional government refused. This caused another investigation which resulted in the Morgan Report.
* The Morgan Report
The most important part of this report was analyzing the placement and activities of the United States Marines. It was determined that their activites were neutral, another source showing the United States was not at fault.
In 1894, the Republic of Hawaii was formed, with a newly elected president. In 1895, multiple rebellions took place in an attempt to place the monarch back on the throne. Guns were smuggled from the United States to support the monarchy. It failed. Miserably.
In 1897, when President McKinley took office, the Republic of Hawaii immediately petitioned the United States to resume negotiations for annexation. In 1898, it was approved, and the United States accepted Hawaii as a territory.
In 1859, the Hawaii Territory became the 50th state of the United States of America. It was supported by 94% of the voters in Hawaii.
There is still no evidence to suggest that the United States Government was behind the annexing of Hawaii by force. The United States was approached numerous times before considering it seriously. Force was not a factor. The Hawaiian government saw it as a need to increase their economy.
Texas v. White
My opponent claims that 5 to 3 vote of the United States Supreme Court makes it a questionable interpretation of the Constitution. However, that is the correct interpretation until another case changing this. Despite the controversy then and now, it doesn't change the fact that it is constitutional law.
* STATE OF TEXAS v. WHITE, 74 U.S. 700 (1868)
My opponent quotes Thomas Jefferson, who I will agree was one of the primary authors of the Constitution, but are those quotes from the Constitution? No. They are from his inaugural address. They do not form constitutional law. As such, they have no bearing on the case, as they are his interpretation, not the valid, legal interpretation, as stated by our Constitution.
The book, "The Real Lincoln", states that every political leader before this case believed states had the right to sucession. However, Texas v. White changed that previous interpretation, and that is the interpretation of constitutional law we are currently held to. At the time the Constitution was written, the United States had no knowledge of Hawaii. As such, any laws or interpretation of laws from that time period are not relevant as the law changes over time.
President Clinton's "Apology Resolution" was a political maneuver because people create their own preconceptions on the past, and demanded an apology. It was politics, plain and simple. Using this logic, there would be no United States at all, as every bit of land was taken from someone else at one time or another.
Conclusion
In a land where all men are created equal, why would we give special treatment to a former nation that repeatedly pretitioned to become a territory and later became a state? The law clearly shows it is forbidden, and until that law is changed, no state should have the rights suggested by my opponent.
History
To start, a clarification. It was never my intention to imply that Cook, the European, and American settlers were responsible for establishing a native population. It was an error of ommission on my part, and I apologize for any confusion in this regard. I am not contesting the indiginous population being present before it was "discovered", as it is a culture rich with traditions and culinary delights to this day. I will also like to clarify that some of the historical information I gave was slightly inaccurate, due to my (failed) attempt to condense way too much into too little of a space. I will expand upon my position in this post greatly.
To address the history of Hawaii past this point will require additional details. The site my opponent supplied details each of the monarchs who ruled over the years. However, several details, some covered by both that site and other numerous details from other references, need to be brought to light.
In 1839 and 1840, Kamehameha III created the Hawaiian Declaration of Right and Constitution for the Hawaiian Islands. This is important, as it changed the government from an absolute monarchy to a constitutional monarchy. Government was no longer the sole domain of the king, but rather split between the executive, legislative, and judicial offices of government. In effect, he gave a significant portion of his power to the people.
In addition, in 1848, he signed the Great Mahele into law. This allowed for land to be privately owned. Originally it was split between the king, the chiefs, and commoners, but since land is owned, it can be sold. Most of the land was sold to foreigners.
*Did the Native Hawaiians Have Aboriginal Title to the Crown and Government Lands?
In 1887, Lorrin Thurston, a Hawaiian born citizen, drafted the Constitution of the Kingdom of Hawaii. It is important to note that even though the constitution was imposed by militia force upon King Kalakaua, this was formed by a Hawaiian citizen. Hawaiian - not the United States. This change to the constitution, enacted by their legislative branch, removed most of the remaining power from the king and granted voting rights based on land ownership. In addition, it gave the United States the right to build a naval base at Pearl Harbor.
As my opponet stated, Lili'uokalani was effectively running the country before taking the throne in 1891 as Queen. However, how well she did at her job is a subject of debate. She claimed she received petitions from 2/3s of her subjects requesting her to change the constitution.
She attempted to do just that in 1893. The Committee of Safety was formed by voters dedicated to her removal from office. That's right, the voters, under their own constitution, dethroned the the monarchy. In effect, a civil war was started.
As my opponent stated earlier, "Enter the United States Marines". What exactly was the purpose of our marines being present? They took up positions at the United States Legation, Consulate, and Arion Hall. All United States interests, per the Hawaii Constitution and treaties signed with the United States. The Consulate is considered United States soil as far as international law is concerned, so let's take a look at the rest of my opponent's claims.
In 1893, the Blount Report indicated that the overthrow of the Queen was unlawful, and that United States Minister John Stevens had carried out unauthorized activites under false pretenses regarding the marines. This was an individual acting out of line. Not the United States Government. Even my opponent's own source shows this.
* The Blount Report
Also, it is important to note that just because someone makes an accusation, it does not make it true. Queen Lili'uokalani has several contradictions within her biography, Hawaii's Story by Hawaii's Queen when compared to other historical records. Why the conflict? I believe it is self apparent. Queen Lili'uokalani wanted to show herself, and her anscestors in a positive light, despite the evidence showing the contrary.
On with our history lesson. President Cleveland was against annexation of Hawaii. He stopped a treaty suggesting this right after coming into office. In December of 1983, the United States demanded the reinstatement of Queen Lili'ukalani to the throne. The provisional government refused. This caused another investigation which resulted in the Morgan Report.
* The Morgan Report
The most important part of this report was analyzing the placement and activities of the United States Marines. It was determined that their activites were neutral, another source showing the United States was not at fault.
In 1894, the Republic of Hawaii was formed, with a newly elected president. In 1895, multiple rebellions took place in an attempt to place the monarch back on the throne. Guns were smuggled from the United States to support the monarchy. It failed. Miserably.
In 1897, when President McKinley took office, the Republic of Hawaii immediately petitioned the United States to resume negotiations for annexation. In 1898, it was approved, and the United States accepted Hawaii as a territory.
In 1859, the Hawaii Territory became the 50th state of the United States of America. It was supported by 94% of the voters in Hawaii.
There is still no evidence to suggest that the United States Government was behind the annexing of Hawaii by force. The United States was approached numerous times before considering it seriously. Force was not a factor. The Hawaiian government saw it as a need to increase their economy.
Texas v. White
My opponent claims that 5 to 3 vote of the United States Supreme Court makes it a questionable interpretation of the Constitution. However, that is the correct interpretation until another case changing this. Despite the controversy then and now, it doesn't change the fact that it is constitutional law.
The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration, or revocation, except through revolution, or through consent of the States.
* STATE OF TEXAS v. WHITE, 74 U.S. 700 (1868)
My opponent quotes Thomas Jefferson, who I will agree was one of the primary authors of the Constitution, but are those quotes from the Constitution? No. They are from his inaugural address. They do not form constitutional law. As such, they have no bearing on the case, as they are his interpretation, not the valid, legal interpretation, as stated by our Constitution.
The book, "The Real Lincoln", states that every political leader before this case believed states had the right to sucession. However, Texas v. White changed that previous interpretation, and that is the interpretation of constitutional law we are currently held to. At the time the Constitution was written, the United States had no knowledge of Hawaii. As such, any laws or interpretation of laws from that time period are not relevant as the law changes over time.
President Clinton's "Apology Resolution" was a political maneuver because people create their own preconceptions on the past, and demanded an apology. It was politics, plain and simple. Using this logic, there would be no United States at all, as every bit of land was taken from someone else at one time or another.
Conclusion
In a land where all men are created equal, why would we give special treatment to a former nation that repeatedly pretitioned to become a territory and later became a state? The law clearly shows it is forbidden, and until that law is changed, no state should have the rights suggested by my opponent.
reply posted on 21-3-2008 @ 10:48 AM by semperfortis
Tournament Round 3
Semperfortis V TLomon
"The State of Hawaii should have a unique right to secede from the United States, if it so chooses".
Semper’s Reply 2:
Observation:
I would ask that my opponent take a look at this:
Now upon reviewing this, I ask that my opponent answer this question, from my last post, on his next reply.
Rebuttal:
The only thing “important” about this is not the change; it is the establishments of the fact that Hawaii was an established Sovereignty before the United States intervention and armed take over.
We must, in this debate never forget or “gloss over” that fact. WE, The United States, invaded and removed a Sovereign Government. This has been established as historical fact so much so that a Presidential Apology and Presidential Ruling have both been made in that regard.
So you agree that the “Power of Self-Determination” was in the hands of the Hawaiian People prior to our invasion? Excellent.
How much land here in the United States is owned by foreign investors? Does that give them the right to come into the United States, armed, to establish with force, their form of government? I think not.
Backed up by and supported by the awesome power and armed Marines of the United States. You just continue to give direct evidence of the hostile and armed take over of the sovereign government of Hawaii by the United States. I appreciate that.
And YOU CLAIM that the United States did not forcibly remove a sovereign government thereby giving those same people the unique right to secede. I have the proof of a Presidential Decision and a Presidential Apology to support my contention. What exactly do you have to support your opinion against the Queen’s claims?
Remember what it is that we are debating:
"The State of Hawaii should have a unique right to secede from the United States, if it so chooses".
“Should Have and So Chooses are the words you should be concentrating on and not wasting time on if the Hawaiian People WOULD or WOULD NOT decide on whether or not to secede. They should have to right to decide that for themselves.
WHAT????????
This INDIVIDUAL was the direct representative of the United States Government in the Sovereign Nation of Hawaii.
How could he possibly NOT be representing his employer in all of his actions? Makes no sense at all there my friend.
Could it be because the Victors always write the history books? Of course it conflicts in certain areas. WWII showed us we needed the Hawaiian Islands badly and we had no intention of admitting, at that time, that we invaded their nation by force and truly have no standing in international law for keeping it.
Side Note:
From your own link:
It seems the majority of Hawaiian people would agree with me.
Rebuttal Continued:
Did you read your own sources?
Excerpts from my opponents own links
No evidence? In fact the evidence is overwhelming and concrete.
In answer to this I present to you, other errors of the Supreme Court.
Ed News
There are many more, but this is an example of why we must always be examining the decisions of any court.
An injustice was done to the sovereign people of Hawaii. The fact that a Supreme Court ruling, made up of Judges appointed by the very same man that violated every aspect of our law in order to force his will upon the people, ruled in his favor, is suspect in every sense of the word.
It is NOT Constitutional Law, it is a Supreme Court Ruling. HUGE DIFFERENCE
Could you PLEASE show me where the Constitution states this?
How can you dismiss the opinions of the writers of the Constitution in favor of Supreme Court Judges that I have shown had an agenda?
EXACTLY my point!!
And time has gone on and we have discovered the truth of what happened and Hawaii DOES have a unique right to secede.
Reference to above quote:
Socratic Question #1
“What other Sovereign Nation, with an established form of government recognized by no less than the British Crown, have we invaded and overthrew?”
Socratic Question #2
“Do you believe that the Supreme Court makes mistakes and that their decisions must be overturned from time to time for the good of the people?
That kind of sums my opponent’s stance up doesn’t it? I have not heard anything like that since reading the “Communist Manifesto”.
FORBIDDEN
NO STATE SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT
Summation:
We live in a free country. Well we are supposed to be living in a free country. How free can this country claim to be, if the “Supposed FREE” people are not free to determine their own destiny?
Ask yourself this.
Is the United States truly free if the PEOPLE do not have the most basic of freedoms, the right to leave the FREE union if they so choose?
I again submit to you that:
"The State of Hawaii should have a unique right to secede from the United States, if it so chooses".
Thank you,
Semper
Semperfortis V TLomon
"The State of Hawaii should have a unique right to secede from the United States, if it so chooses".
Semper’s Reply 2:
Observation:
I would ask that my opponent take a look at this:
The Socratic Debate Rule is in effect. Each debater may ask up to 5 questions in each post, except for in closing statements- no questions are permitted in closing statements. These questions should be clearly labeled as "Question 1, Question 2, etc.
When asked a question, a debater must give a straight forward answer in his next post. Explanations and qualifications to an answer are acceptable, but must be preceeded by a direct answer.
Now upon reviewing this, I ask that my opponent answer this question, from my last post, on his next reply.
From Semperfortis Reply #1
Socratic Question #1
Do you believe that the Founders of the Constitution would have so openly spoken of the states right of secession had they not intended for those states to have that right?
Rebuttal:
This is important, as it changed the government from an absolute monarchy to a constitutional monarchy.
The only thing “important” about this is not the change; it is the establishments of the fact that Hawaii was an established Sovereignty before the United States intervention and armed take over.
We must, in this debate never forget or “gloss over” that fact. WE, The United States, invaded and removed a Sovereign Government. This has been established as historical fact so much so that a Presidential Apology and Presidential Ruling have both been made in that regard.
In effect, he gave a significant portion of his power to the people.
So you agree that the “Power of Self-Determination” was in the hands of the Hawaiian People prior to our invasion? Excellent.
This allowed for land to be privately owned. Originally it was split between the king, the chiefs, and commoners, but since land is owned, it can be sold. Most of the land was sold to foreigners.
How much land here in the United States is owned by foreign investors? Does that give them the right to come into the United States, armed, to establish with force, their form of government? I think not.
the constitution was imposed by militia force upon King Kalakaua, this was formed by a Hawaiian citizen.
Backed up by and supported by the awesome power and armed Marines of the United States. You just continue to give direct evidence of the hostile and armed take over of the sovereign government of Hawaii by the United States. I appreciate that.
She claimed she received petitions from 2/3s of her subjects requesting her to change the constitution.
And YOU CLAIM that the United States did not forcibly remove a sovereign government thereby giving those same people the unique right to secede. I have the proof of a Presidential Decision and a Presidential Apology to support my contention. What exactly do you have to support your opinion against the Queen’s claims?
That's right, the voters, under their own constitution, dethroned the the monarchy. In effect, a civil war was started.
Remember what it is that we are debating:
"The State of Hawaii should have a unique right to secede from the United States, if it so chooses".
“Should Have and So Chooses are the words you should be concentrating on and not wasting time on if the Hawaiian People WOULD or WOULD NOT decide on whether or not to secede. They should have to right to decide that for themselves.
In 1893, the Blount Report indicated that the overthrow of the Queen was unlawful, and that United States Minister John Stevens had carried out unauthorized activites under false pretenses regarding the marines. This was an individual acting out of line.
WHAT????????
This INDIVIDUAL was the direct representative of the United States Government in the Sovereign Nation of Hawaii.
How could he possibly NOT be representing his employer in all of his actions? Makes no sense at all there my friend.
Queen Lili'uokalani has several contradictions within her biography, Hawaii's Story by Hawaii's Queen when compared to other historical records. Why the conflict?
Could it be because the Victors always write the history books? Of course it conflicts in certain areas. WWII showed us we needed the Hawaiian Islands badly and we had no intention of admitting, at that time, that we invaded their nation by force and truly have no standing in international law for keeping it.
Side Note:
From your own link:
The Proclamation of Restoration of the Independent and Sovereign Nation-State of Hawai'i of January 16, 1994, is hereby adopted on behalf of the people of the Nation of Hawai'i, and is incorporated into this Constitution with full force and effect as law.
It seems the majority of Hawaiian people would agree with me.
Rebuttal Continued:
There is still no evidence to suggest that the United States Government was behind the annexing of Hawaii by force.
Did you read your own sources?
Excerpts from my opponents own links
He signed that constitution under absolute compulsion.
It has been known ever since that day as "The Bayonet Constitution,"
on the fifth day of July, 1887, the two men, against whom no charge, political nor criminal, was ever made, were placed on board a sailing-vessel and landed at San Francisco.
but was informed by the attorney-general, Mr. W. O. Smith, that he was removed from office, "simply because you are a friend of the queen."
No evidence? In fact the evidence is overwhelming and concrete.
My opponent claims that 5 to 3 vote of the United States Supreme Court makes it a questionable interpretation of the Constitution. However, that is the correct interpretation until another case changing this.
In answer to this I present to you, other errors of the Supreme Court.
The first was the Dred Scott decision in 1857. Scott was a slave who said he should be a free man because he had been taken to a free state. Today, 150 years later, it still seems unbelievable that the court not only ruled against him, but held that "people of African ancestry...are not included, and were not intended to included under the word 'citizens' in the Constitution."
In 1896 it was Plessy v. Ferguson in which the Court ruled that separate but equal facilities were constitutional. There is a double issue here. The first, of course, is the ruling that separate facilities, in this instance transportation, are no problem. The Court had the audacity to say that no sense of inferiority was implied and it only existed if the black race chose to so regard it.
Ed News
There are many more, but this is an example of why we must always be examining the decisions of any court.
An injustice was done to the sovereign people of Hawaii. The fact that a Supreme Court ruling, made up of Judges appointed by the very same man that violated every aspect of our law in order to force his will upon the people, ruled in his favor, is suspect in every sense of the word.
it doesn't change the fact that it is constitutional law.
It is NOT Constitutional Law, it is a Supreme Court Ruling. HUGE DIFFERENCE
My opponent quotes Thomas Jefferson…..
As such, they have no bearing on the case, as they are his interpretation, not the valid, legal interpretation, as stated by our Constitution.
Could you PLEASE show me where the Constitution states this?
How can you dismiss the opinions of the writers of the Constitution in favor of Supreme Court Judges that I have shown had an agenda?
as the law changes over time.
EXACTLY my point!!
And time has gone on and we have discovered the truth of what happened and Hawaii DOES have a unique right to secede.
there would be no United States at all, as every bit of land was taken from someone else at one time or another.
Reference to above quote:
Socratic Question #1
“What other Sovereign Nation, with an established form of government recognized by no less than the British Crown, have we invaded and overthrew?”
Socratic Question #2
“Do you believe that the Supreme Court makes mistakes and that their decisions must be overturned from time to time for the good of the people?
The law clearly shows it is forbidden, and until that law is changed, no state should have the rights suggested by my opponent.
That kind of sums my opponent’s stance up doesn’t it? I have not heard anything like that since reading the “Communist Manifesto”.
FORBIDDEN
NO STATE SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT
Summation:
We live in a free country. Well we are supposed to be living in a free country. How free can this country claim to be, if the “Supposed FREE” people are not free to determine their own destiny?
Ask yourself this.
Is the United States truly free if the PEOPLE do not have the most basic of freedoms, the right to leave the FREE union if they so choose?
I again submit to you that:
"The State of Hawaii should have a unique right to secede from the United States, if it so chooses".
Thank you,
Semper
reply posted on 22-3-2008 @ 03:14 AM by TLomon
I'd like to just take a moment to thank Semperfortis for the custom avatar he gave me. It compliments my signature very nicely. Now, on with the
debate!
Socratic Question
My opponent stated that I did not answer his question. However, I felt I did in discussion, although I did not label it as such. I will be sure to do so more clearly in the future. For clarification, the question and my reply are below.
Yes, but beliefs change when states change from 13 to 50 and a hundred years pass. What is relevant is our current interpretation of the Constitution.
Rebuttal
My opponent and I are both in agreement that Hawaii was a sovereign state before becoming a United States territory. My opponent and I are also in agreement that Kamehameha III transferred the power to the people of Hawaii. He used the term "Power of Self-Determination". Finally, we are in agreement that land was sold to foreigners. However, there is a few discrepancies that need to be detailed.
The amount of land owned by foreign investors in the United States is irrelevant. The difference between the United States and Hawaii was the Great Mahele. Owning land does not give you the right to vote in the United States. However, in Hawaii it was a requirement. The "foreign investors" were the voting populace. They became the majority.
The constitution was forced upon the king in 1887 "backed up by and supported by the awesome power and armed Marines of the United States". However, that is incorrect. The marine incident did not occur until 1893, which is six years after the fact. The evidence you are referring to is misleading, as you are mixing up two different events. The Bayonet Constitution did not include United States troops or representatives during its inception, so any implication of that is patently wrong.
Until my opponent can get his timeline correct, it will be difficult to get to the key date we need to discuss. I'll address that in my questions at the end.
So, let's fast forward to 1893, when the marines were involved. The Blount Report is the basis used by people to validate that the United States was behind the overthrow of the Queen. However, it is important to note that James Blount went to Hawaii with a preconceived notion on what had happened, and the report was designed around the notion, instead of coming to a conclusion afterwards.
* Witnesses interviewed were extremely selective and from one side of the conflict.
* Several key pieces of evidence supplied to Blount were never introduced in the report due to conflicting with his intention.
* Witnesses that were interviewed state that Blount "twisted, distorted, or lied" what he was told.
* President Cleveland conspired against the provisional government in order to prevent annexation.
The exact details in each of these bullet points can be argued further if my opponent desires. However, a full analysis of this has already been done.
* How the Morgan Report repudiates the Blount Report
Back to Stevens for a moment. Although the Blount report finds him acting on unauthorized activities, this is the worst case scenario of what he did participate in. That is not the only interpretation of his actions, and further reports which included interviews with both sides of the revolution found that he acted with a neutral stance in defense of American interests.
Looking at both reports, the best description of what I found was a quote, "the truth lies somewhere in the middle". On one side, we have a person acting without authorized orders, but on further review of the evidence from all parties, he was later found innocent of these charges.
An individual made a questionable call, to protect American property, rightly owned by American citizens. Being a leader is not about making the right decision all the time, it is about making wrong ones as well. In this case, the interest of protecting American lives outweighed political repercussions. Would you have been able to make the same call?
My opponent stated the victors write history. The Queen also wrote a book, which was previously linked. The Queen herself wrote that she was approached in 1888 with the idea of overthrowing the monarch. Revolution was a long time in the making, and the United States had no ties to it. In fact, it has already been shown multiple times they were against it.
Presidential Apology (aka Presidential Propaganda)
Now, let's address the Presidential Apology. My opponent claims this is evidence of wrongdoing by the United States Government. I say it was a political gesture. Let's take a look at the full text.
* 1993 U.S. Apology Resolution
Now let's take a look at a few others. These are just a few of hundreds of examples.
* PRESIDENTIAL LETTER OF APOLOGY
* Presidential Apology
* Presidential Apology
Why the others? To show that political messages are not the same as factual history. A person, performing their civic duty by testifying before a grand jury as a witness, received a presidential apology. Do we get the same treatment when we have to perform jury duty? The apologies are done for high profile political messages. They are delivered to the media. They are specifically designed to make an elected official more popular with the people.
The Presidential Apology was given to placate people who feel they were unjustly treated. It doesn't make it the truth.
Supreme Court
First, the clarification of constitutional law. US Code: Title 28, 1258 defines the responsibilities of the Supreme Court as being limited to federal statutory or constitutional law. The case I submitted was about constitutional interpretation, and thus, constitutional law. That is how I read it. This is not just a court ruling, but law in the making. Or, to clarify, the current interpretation of the constitutional used by our government. If you would like to argue semantics, that is fine. It doesn't change that a "Supreme Court Decision" it is the current interpretation of the Constitution.
As we both agree, the law changes. The Constitution also changes. That is what amendments are. The case you submitted was later changed, most notably by the 13th. As such, it is not the current interpretation of the Constitution. However, it was the correct interpretation at the time of the decision. The Supreme Court was not wrong. The law changed.
You asked me to show where in the Constitution that a presidential inaugarel speech isn't law? I'll make it simple for you. It isn't. It never was. It most likely will never be so. Whether you agree with the Supreme Court or not, that is the current interpretation of the Constitution that we are held to, speeches or not.
The law hasn't been changed since Texas v. White. Until it does, stick with what we have. You make claims that the law should stay as the same as Jefferson's time, yet then claim it changes. Which is it?
Question Time
Trick question, because United States involvement is still the subject of debate here on Hawaii. However, countries we have done that to, per your exact question: Iraq, Afghanistan, Panama, Cambodia. Need more? I am sure I can find a dozen or so if needed.
Yes, but until that overturn happens, their decision is how we interpret the Constitution.
My turn...
Question #1: Do you agree with the timeline I have established so we can focus on the events leading up to and including 1893?
Question #2: Do you acknowledge that the Bayonet Constitution had nothing to do with the United States?
Conclusion
The events and status of Hawaii in 1893 is the primary focus of this debate. Do not let propaganda and inaccurate representations of United States law sway you from the truth.
Socratic Question
My opponent stated that I did not answer his question. However, I felt I did in discussion, although I did not label it as such. I will be sure to do so more clearly in the future. For clarification, the question and my reply are below.
Socratic Question #1
Do you believe that the Founders of the Constitution would have so openly spoken of the states right of secession had they not intended for those states to have that right?
Yes, but beliefs change when states change from 13 to 50 and a hundred years pass. What is relevant is our current interpretation of the Constitution.
Rebuttal
My opponent and I are both in agreement that Hawaii was a sovereign state before becoming a United States territory. My opponent and I are also in agreement that Kamehameha III transferred the power to the people of Hawaii. He used the term "Power of Self-Determination". Finally, we are in agreement that land was sold to foreigners. However, there is a few discrepancies that need to be detailed.
How much land here in the United States is owned by foreign investors? Does that give them the right to come into the United States, armed, to establish with force, their form of government?
The amount of land owned by foreign investors in the United States is irrelevant. The difference between the United States and Hawaii was the Great Mahele. Owning land does not give you the right to vote in the United States. However, in Hawaii it was a requirement. The "foreign investors" were the voting populace. They became the majority.
The constitution was forced upon the king in 1887 "backed up by and supported by the awesome power and armed Marines of the United States". However, that is incorrect. The marine incident did not occur until 1893, which is six years after the fact. The evidence you are referring to is misleading, as you are mixing up two different events. The Bayonet Constitution did not include United States troops or representatives during its inception, so any implication of that is patently wrong.
Until my opponent can get his timeline correct, it will be difficult to get to the key date we need to discuss. I'll address that in my questions at the end.
So, let's fast forward to 1893, when the marines were involved. The Blount Report is the basis used by people to validate that the United States was behind the overthrow of the Queen. However, it is important to note that James Blount went to Hawaii with a preconceived notion on what had happened, and the report was designed around the notion, instead of coming to a conclusion afterwards.
* Witnesses interviewed were extremely selective and from one side of the conflict.
* Several key pieces of evidence supplied to Blount were never introduced in the report due to conflicting with his intention.
* Witnesses that were interviewed state that Blount "twisted, distorted, or lied" what he was told.
* President Cleveland conspired against the provisional government in order to prevent annexation.
The exact details in each of these bullet points can be argued further if my opponent desires. However, a full analysis of this has already been done.
* How the Morgan Report repudiates the Blount Report
Back to Stevens for a moment. Although the Blount report finds him acting on unauthorized activities, this is the worst case scenario of what he did participate in. That is not the only interpretation of his actions, and further reports which included interviews with both sides of the revolution found that he acted with a neutral stance in defense of American interests.
Looking at both reports, the best description of what I found was a quote, "the truth lies somewhere in the middle". On one side, we have a person acting without authorized orders, but on further review of the evidence from all parties, he was later found innocent of these charges.
An individual made a questionable call, to protect American property, rightly owned by American citizens. Being a leader is not about making the right decision all the time, it is about making wrong ones as well. In this case, the interest of protecting American lives outweighed political repercussions. Would you have been able to make the same call?
My opponent stated the victors write history. The Queen also wrote a book, which was previously linked. The Queen herself wrote that she was approached in 1888 with the idea of overthrowing the monarch. Revolution was a long time in the making, and the United States had no ties to it. In fact, it has already been shown multiple times they were against it.
Presidential Apology (aka Presidential Propaganda)
Now, let's address the Presidential Apology. My opponent claims this is evidence of wrongdoing by the United States Government. I say it was a political gesture. Let's take a look at the full text.
* 1993 U.S. Apology Resolution
Now let's take a look at a few others. These are just a few of hundreds of examples.
* PRESIDENTIAL LETTER OF APOLOGY
* Presidential Apology
* Presidential Apology
Why the others? To show that political messages are not the same as factual history. A person, performing their civic duty by testifying before a grand jury as a witness, received a presidential apology. Do we get the same treatment when we have to perform jury duty? The apologies are done for high profile political messages. They are delivered to the media. They are specifically designed to make an elected official more popular with the people.
The Presidential Apology was given to placate people who feel they were unjustly treated. It doesn't make it the truth.
Supreme Court
First, the clarification of constitutional law. US Code: Title 28, 1258 defines the responsibilities of the Supreme Court as being limited to federal statutory or constitutional law. The case I submitted was about constitutional interpretation, and thus, constitutional law. That is how I read it. This is not just a court ruling, but law in the making. Or, to clarify, the current interpretation of the constitutional used by our government. If you would like to argue semantics, that is fine. It doesn't change that a "Supreme Court Decision" it is the current interpretation of the Constitution.
As we both agree, the law changes. The Constitution also changes. That is what amendments are. The case you submitted was later changed, most notably by the 13th. As such, it is not the current interpretation of the Constitution. However, it was the correct interpretation at the time of the decision. The Supreme Court was not wrong. The law changed.
You asked me to show where in the Constitution that a presidential inaugarel speech isn't law? I'll make it simple for you. It isn't. It never was. It most likely will never be so. Whether you agree with the Supreme Court or not, that is the current interpretation of the Constitution that we are held to, speeches or not.
The law hasn't been changed since Texas v. White. Until it does, stick with what we have. You make claims that the law should stay as the same as Jefferson's time, yet then claim it changes. Which is it?
Question Time
Socratic Question #1
“What other Sovereign Nation, with an established form of government recognized by no less than the British Crown, have we invaded and overthrew?”
Trick question, because United States involvement is still the subject of debate here on Hawaii. However, countries we have done that to, per your exact question: Iraq, Afghanistan, Panama, Cambodia. Need more? I am sure I can find a dozen or so if needed.
Socratic Question #2
“Do you believe that the Supreme Court makes mistakes and that their decisions must be overturned from time to time for the good of the people?
Yes, but until that overturn happens, their decision is how we interpret the Constitution.
My turn...
Question #1: Do you agree with the timeline I have established so we can focus on the events leading up to and including 1893?
Question #2: Do you acknowledge that the Bayonet Constitution had nothing to do with the United States?
Conclusion
The events and status of Hawaii in 1893 is the primary focus of this debate. Do not let propaganda and inaccurate representations of United States law sway you from the truth.
reply posted on 22-3-2008 @ 11:12 PM by semperfortis
Tournament Round 3
Semperfortis V TLomon
"The State of Hawaii should have a unique right to secede from the United States, if it so chooses".
Semper’s Reply 3 :
Observation:
The rules my esteemed opponent, the rules…Thank you for complying.
Rebuttal:
So to you, the direction and basic “intent” of the Founding Fathers is just so much hogwash when ruled against by some hand picked lackeys of a President that historically violated every single states right and abused his power time and again? Interesting to say the least.
As you are depending heavily on the case of Texas V White, we are going to examine that case at length later in this post.
The time line is absolutely irrelevant to the debate issue as you present them. What needed to be established has been so by your own admission.
Use your timeline if you so desire.
See here:
This confirms, for the purpose of this debate, that the United States invaded, with armed force, a Sovereign Nation and inserted our own government in place of the Hawaiian Government that was an established entity; established to the point of recognition by the British Crown.
Thereby setting up the continuing circumstances that give the Hawaiian people a unique history apart from the other 49 states, and establishing a foundation for secession, a foundation as unique as the Hawaiian history.
Now skipping through your timeline problems that really have no bearing and on to a pertinent point.
From your own link:
Presidential Apology:
Emphasis Mine
Now I believe that YOU have established for me the FACT that the United States overthrew a foreign sovereign Government; thus establishing the basis for Hawaii’s unique right to secede.
This is from your own links my valued opponent.
Of course they are not, however, when that apology includes a very systematic timeline, undisputed (Your own link) and accurate, (Same as the one you are obsessing about) as it pertains to the history of a sovereign nation and the United States apology for invading and overthrowing that nation, one may conclude the facts are just that; FACTS.
This makes no sense at all.
Side Note:
Why are you listing all of my questions as “Trick Questions”? Even the ones you refused to answer until presented with the rules in open forum. Are you having difficulty in answering them?
Socratic Answers:
Answer #1
The timeline is not relevant to the debate other than what both you and I have established; that the United States invaded with force a sovereign Government. I am perfectly happy with the timeline presented in the Presidential Apology that outlines my assertions quite accurately.
Answer #2
No
See Here:
Wiki
Readers and Judges, my opponents contention that the Bayonet Constitution had nothing to do with the United States omits some VERY important information I will now make available to you, his contention is completely false.
The writer of the Bayonet Constitution was Lorrin A. Thurston.
While born in Hawaii, he was the son of American Missionaries and spent his life promoting American Influence in Hawaii.
More:
Lorrin Thurston
As you can clearly see, my opponent’s assertion that the Bayonet Constitution had nothing to do with the United States is pure fantasy. Using my opponent’s links, I discovered and presented here to you the truth of the MASSIVE involvement of the United States.
Thus further proving the United States invaded a sovereign nation.
I believe that by reading my information I provided for you above, you can easily make the determination of who is posting propaganda and inaccurate representations.
Now on to American Law:
It is my opponent’s contention, as he has clearly stated, that the decision of Texas V White establishes constitutional law denying a states right to secede.
Let’s examine that shall we?
Michael C. Dorf, Columbia Professors of Law says:
Find Law
As you can see, the one pure standard my opponent has rested his entire case on, gives specific allowances for a States rights to secede.
Thus the proposition that:
"The State of Hawaii should have a unique right to secede from the United States, if it so chooses".
Is perfectly applicable and has a legal standing.
In both Lincolns Address and the ruling of Texas V White,
“It was strongly implied that it would be possible for one or more states to leave the Union with the consent of the Union as a whole.”
“Just as Congress can approve the admission of new states, the argument would go, so it can let old states leave.”
(Above referenced previous links)
As it is agreed upon by all legal proponents that the Constitution is silent on the issue of secession, the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution then becomes not only applicable but central to the issue.
The Tenth Amendment states:
Find Law
Key word time again. “RESERVED TO THE STATES RESPECTIVELY, OR TO THE PEOPLE
Looking at the debate title:
"The State of Hawaii should have a unique right to secede from the United States, if it so chooses".
I believe that it is clear that the Tenth Amendment and the Texas V White decision both respect a right of secession under a decision of the people or the state.
Also of note:
“The Supreme Court decision of Texas V White, 1868, was made prior to the 1887 Bayonet Constitution. Therefore the Hawaiian situation was not taken into account.”
Sobran
Seems that Texas V White is NOT as clear cut as my opponent would have you believe.
Therefore it is clear that:
"The State of Hawaii should have a unique right to secede from the United States, if it so chooses".
Thank you,
Semper
Semperfortis V TLomon
"The State of Hawaii should have a unique right to secede from the United States, if it so chooses".
Semper’s Reply 3 :
Observation:
My opponent stated that I did not answer his question. However, I felt I did in discussion,
The rules my esteemed opponent, the rules…Thank you for complying.
Rebuttal:
What is relevant is our current interpretation of the Constitution.
So to you, the direction and basic “intent” of the Founding Fathers is just so much hogwash when ruled against by some hand picked lackeys of a President that historically violated every single states right and abused his power time and again? Interesting to say the least.
As you are depending heavily on the case of Texas V White, we are going to examine that case at length later in this post.
Until my opponent can get his timeline correct, it will be difficult to get to the key date we need to discuss. I'll address that in my questions at the end.
The time line is absolutely irrelevant to the debate issue as you present them. What needed to be established has been so by your own admission.
Use your timeline if you so desire.
See here:
My opponent and I are both in agreement that Hawaii was a sovereign state before becoming a United States territory.
This confirms, for the purpose of this debate, that the United States invaded, with armed force, a Sovereign Nation and inserted our own government in place of the Hawaiian Government that was an established entity; established to the point of recognition by the British Crown.
Thereby setting up the continuing circumstances that give the Hawaiian people a unique history apart from the other 49 states, and establishing a foundation for secession, a foundation as unique as the Hawaiian history.
Now skipping through your timeline problems that really have no bearing and on to a pertinent point.
Now, let's address the Presidential Apology
From your own link:
Presidential Apology:
100th anniversary of the January 17, 1893 overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii, and to offer an apology to Native Hawaiians on behalf of the United States for the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii.
Whereas, a unified monarchical government of the Hawaiian Islands was established in 1810 under Kamehameha I, the first King of Hawaii
The United States recognized the independence of the Kingdom of Hawaii, extended full and complete diplomatic recognition to the Hawaiian Government, and entered into treaties and conventions with the Hawaiian monarchs
The United States Minister.. conspired with a small group of non-Hawaiian residents.. including citizens of the United States, to overthrow the indigenous and lawful Government of Hawaii
Emphasis Mine
Now I believe that YOU have established for me the FACT that the United States overthrew a foreign sovereign Government; thus establishing the basis for Hawaii’s unique right to secede.
This is from your own links my valued opponent.
To show that political messages are not the same as factual history
Of course they are not, however, when that apology includes a very systematic timeline, undisputed (Your own link) and accurate, (Same as the one you are obsessing about) as it pertains to the history of a sovereign nation and the United States apology for invading and overthrowing that nation, one may conclude the facts are just that; FACTS.
The Presidential Apology was given to placate people who feel they were unjustly treated. It doesn't make it the truth.
This makes no sense at all.
Side Note:
Trick question
Why are you listing all of my questions as “Trick Questions”? Even the ones you refused to answer until presented with the rules in open forum. Are you having difficulty in answering them?
Socratic Answers:
Question #1: Do you agree with the timeline I have established so we can focus on the events leading up to and including 1893?
Question #2: Do you acknowledge that the Bayonet Constitution had nothing to do with the United States?
Answer #1
The timeline is not relevant to the debate other than what both you and I have established; that the United States invaded with force a sovereign Government. I am perfectly happy with the timeline presented in the Presidential Apology that outlines my assertions quite accurately.
Answer #2
No
See Here:
The 1887 Constitution of the Kingdom of Hawaiʻi stripped the Hawaiian monarchy of much of its authority
Generally empowering rich citizens, including American
It is now widely known as the Bayonet Constitution
Wiki
Readers and Judges, my opponents contention that the Bayonet Constitution had nothing to do with the United States omits some VERY important information I will now make available to you, his contention is completely false.
The writer of the Bayonet Constitution was Lorrin A. Thurston.
While born in Hawaii, he was the son of American Missionaries and spent his life promoting American Influence in Hawaii.
More:
Lorrin Andrews Thurston
stripped the monarch King Kalākaua of all executive power and gave American and European immigrants the right to vote
headed the commission sent to Washington, DC to negotiate American annexation
His fortunes rose considerably as a result of the Islands' annexation by the United States.
Lorrin Thurston
As you can clearly see, my opponent’s assertion that the Bayonet Constitution had nothing to do with the United States is pure fantasy. Using my opponent’s links, I discovered and presented here to you the truth of the MASSIVE involvement of the United States.
Thus further proving the United States invaded a sovereign nation.
Do not let propaganda and inaccurate representations of United States law sway you from the truth.
I believe that by reading my information I provided for you above, you can easily make the determination of who is posting propaganda and inaccurate representations.
Now on to American Law:
It is my opponent’s contention, as he has clearly stated, that the decision of Texas V White establishes constitutional law denying a states right to secede.
Let’s examine that shall we?
Michael C. Dorf, Columbia Professors of Law says:
the Constitution is probably best read as permitting the mutually agreed upon departure of one or more states.
There is reason to think that the Supreme Court's "indestructible" formulation in Texas v. White was hyperbole.
as the Court in Texas v. White claimed, perhaps the Union isn't indestructible either.
And indeed, the Supreme Court in Texas v. White recognized that secession by mutual agreement stands on a different footing from unilateral secession. After finding against a state's right of unilateral secession, the Court acknowledged an exception for secession "through revolution, or through consent of the States."
Find Law
As you can see, the one pure standard my opponent has rested his entire case on, gives specific allowances for a States rights to secede.
Thus the proposition that:
"The State of Hawaii should have a unique right to secede from the United States, if it so chooses".
Is perfectly applicable and has a legal standing.
In both Lincolns Address and the ruling of Texas V White,
“It was strongly implied that it would be possible for one or more states to leave the Union with the consent of the Union as a whole.”
“Just as Congress can approve the admission of new states, the argument would go, so it can let old states leave.”
(Above referenced previous links)
As it is agreed upon by all legal proponents that the Constitution is silent on the issue of secession, the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution then becomes not only applicable but central to the issue.
The Tenth Amendment states:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people
Find Law
Key word time again. “RESERVED TO THE STATES RESPECTIVELY, OR TO THE PEOPLE
Looking at the debate title:
"The State of Hawaii should have a unique right to secede from the United States, if it so chooses".
I believe that it is clear that the Tenth Amendment and the Texas V White decision both respect a right of secession under a decision of the people or the state.
Also of note:
“The Supreme Court decision of Texas V White, 1868, was made prior to the 1887 Bayonet Constitution. Therefore the Hawaiian situation was not taken into account.”
If there was a right of secession before that war, it should be just as valid now.
The Constitution itself is silent on the subject, but since secession was an established right, it didn’t have to be reaffirmed.
Three states ratified the Constitution with the provision that they could later secede if they chose; the other ten states accepted this condition as valid.
Sobran
Seems that Texas V White is NOT as clear cut as my opponent would have you believe.
Therefore it is clear that:
"The State of Hawaii should have a unique right to secede from the United States, if it so chooses".
Thank you,
Semper
reply posted on 23-3-2008 @ 02:37 PM by TLomon
I want to thank my opponent for his patience with my inexperience in the technical matters of debating here.
The Founding Fathers
I really think my father-in-law would take offense to this statement. Let's take a look at the founding fathers. Slave owner... slave owner... slave owner... Even Thomas Jefferson had slaves. Biographers claimed he tried to abolish slavery, yet at the same time he practiced it. A tad hypocritical, wouldn't you agree?
I think this clearly shows that our founding fathers were not correct in all regards, and as such, the Constitution had to be changed (13th amendment again). The "intent" of our founding fathers was to keep their way of life without foreign influence. If Thomas Jefferson truly believed in freeing the slaves, that would have been done when he drafted the Constitution, not 89 years after the fact.
Time Line
I believe the time line is far from irrelevant, as it shows when laws were enacted, events took place, and that United States marines had nothing to do with the Bayonet constitution, as you originally stated. Without taking all of this into account, you can't see the clear line of events, the facts surrounding the Queen's loss of the throne will be blurred.
My opponent claims that my agreement that Hawaii was a sovereign state before becoming a territory as proof that the United States invaded and overthrew their government. It confirms nothing my opponent claims, as their own internal civil war placed their own government in place that did not cater to requests from President Cleveland, who was the Commander in Chief at the time. This clearly shows that it was not a puppet government, but an independent ruling party. A party that petitioned the United States to become a territory on its own.
Hawaii's overthrow of the monarch was a direct result of their enacting of laws and voting privileges under their version of a democratic government, and a rebellion took place when they tried to change it. The Queen was trying to enforce what amounts to a dictatorship. The voting populace, as well as their duly elected officials, were against this, and took the throne away. Her own autobiography states this.
Should we overlook the part when she petitioned the legislative body to grant her an $25,000 a year stipend to adjucate the thrown willingly? A great deal of money then, equivalent to over $200,000 in today's dollars. They refused to yield to her extortionist methodology, and she paid the price.
Presidential Apology (aka Presidential Propaganda Part II)
It's interesting. I post the text you left out for the Presidential Apology to Hawaii, and you are taking it as fact, yet right below, state that it is not the same as fact, which is what I am arguing. The timeline matches, but does not take into account that the agenda behind certain reports, and ignoring findings of later reports covering more detail.
The Hawaiian people are a proud people. They have every right to be so. Their culture is rich with tradition. However, they also believe that their monarchs were infallible, despite the problems with bribes, crazy spending habits, and extravagant life styles. How do you placate a people that don't want to hear anything else? You issue a presidential apology.
Compare the Presidential Pardon for Hawaii with those issued to the Japanese-Americans. They were given compensation for the land seized from them during World War II. Was a similar offer given to Hawaii? No. The reason is because we didn't actually seize land from them. They sold it to us. The Hawaiian people wanted an apology, and they received it.
I am not sure why you claim this makes no sense at all, because it makes perfect sense to me. I can some it up in one word: politics.
Let's take at what other people have to say about this apology you claim admits fault.
Hawaii Divided Against Itself Cannot Stand by Bruce Fein
It is a very interesting report. It is extremely detailed, and covers a lot of sources. I couldn't do it justice without quoting extensively from it, so I leave it to you to read and weigh it's arguments against a document that was discussed for 1 hour in Senate with only 5 participants in the discussion. Even then, it only passed 3 to 2. It passed Congress in even less time. Last time I checked the Senate had 100 members. Why such a small sampling unless it was intended to be pushed through (which it was)?
E Pluribus Unum? Not in Hawaii
Take a careful look at both of these sources. They cover a lot of the unscrupulous methods used to get the Presidential Apology approved. This further shows that is was nothing more then a political maneuver.
In summary, I believe it is proven way beyond a reasonable doubt that the Presidential Apology was a sham.
Lorrin A. Thurston, Revolutionist
Let's take a review of your bullet points. First we have a Hawaiian citizen that was elected into office pressure the monarch to end discrimination based on ancestry by modifying the Constitution. Isn't this what democracy is supposed to be about?
I repeat, the Bayonet Constitution, had nothing to do with the United States. To claim this is to claim that every person who's ancestors’' owned slaves is responsible for slavery (using the parallel you introduced).
The rest of your points happened after the incident on 1893, and are not relevant to the accusations made. Thurston was not an agent of the United States. To imply that he was is patently false. There is no evidence to suggest he ever was other then a person's individual income? Yes, he was motivated to work with the United States, but that doesn't make him a puppet, or an agent, or what ever word you want to use. Politicians do that. It hasn't changed since the founding of our country.
Let's go back to Thomas Jefferson a second. Why did he keep his slaves when he claimed he was opposed to them? Financial reasons. It appears that belief went back in politics since day one of the United States.
Back to Law School(ing)
You are quoting statements that apply to all states in general, not just Hawaii. Remember, the topic is "The State of Hawaii should have a unique right to secede", emphasis mine.
The Supreme Court Ruling indicated that Texas does not have that unique right, and as such, it goes to Hawaii as well. By supposing a right that every state has (under process), it counters the original argument about the unique right you claim Hawaii should have.
Question Commentary
You asked me why I am responding with the clause "trick question". The answer is simple. The exact way you word certain questions takes into account details I do not believe have been proven yet. If I answered them without clarifying this point, I would be admitting "facts" that have not been proven yet, and would force me to make a false statement.
I have no questions for my opponent this round, as he has already conceeded the point I was trying to make. The time line is crucial leading up to the events where the provisional government took control of Hawaii.
Conclusion
A close review of the time line and all parties involved in these historical events clearly show the United States was not responsible for the overthrow of the monarchy, but rather their own actions caused the series of events that led to their down fall.
My opponent would like us to take political maneuvering as fact, when the evidence clearly shows that is what it is.
I look forward to my opponent's closing statement.
The Founding Fathers
So to you, the direction and basic “intent” of the Founding Fathers is just so much hogwash when ruled against by some hand picked lackeys of a President that historically violated every single states right and abused his power time and again?
I really think my father-in-law would take offense to this statement. Let's take a look at the founding fathers. Slave owner... slave owner... slave owner... Even Thomas Jefferson had slaves. Biographers claimed he tried to abolish slavery, yet at the same time he practiced it. A tad hypocritical, wouldn't you agree?
I think this clearly shows that our founding fathers were not correct in all regards, and as such, the Constitution had to be changed (13th amendment again). The "intent" of our founding fathers was to keep their way of life without foreign influence. If Thomas Jefferson truly believed in freeing the slaves, that would have been done when he drafted the Constitution, not 89 years after the fact.
Time Line
I believe the time line is far from irrelevant, as it shows when laws were enacted, events took place, and that United States marines had nothing to do with the Bayonet constitution, as you originally stated. Without taking all of this into account, you can't see the clear line of events, the facts surrounding the Queen's loss of the throne will be blurred.
My opponent claims that my agreement that Hawaii was a sovereign state before becoming a territory as proof that the United States invaded and overthrew their government. It confirms nothing my opponent claims, as their own internal civil war placed their own government in place that did not cater to requests from President Cleveland, who was the Commander in Chief at the time. This clearly shows that it was not a puppet government, but an independent ruling party. A party that petitioned the United States to become a territory on its own.
Hawaii's overthrow of the monarch was a direct result of their enacting of laws and voting privileges under their version of a democratic government, and a rebellion took place when they tried to change it. The Queen was trying to enforce what amounts to a dictatorship. The voting populace, as well as their duly elected officials, were against this, and took the throne away. Her own autobiography states this.
Should we overlook the part when she petitioned the legislative body to grant her an $25,000 a year stipend to adjucate the thrown willingly? A great deal of money then, equivalent to over $200,000 in today's dollars. They refused to yield to her extortionist methodology, and she paid the price.
Presidential Apology (aka Presidential Propaganda Part II)
It's interesting. I post the text you left out for the Presidential Apology to Hawaii, and you are taking it as fact, yet right below, state that it is not the same as fact, which is what I am arguing. The timeline matches, but does not take into account that the agenda behind certain reports, and ignoring findings of later reports covering more detail.
The Hawaiian people are a proud people. They have every right to be so. Their culture is rich with tradition. However, they also believe that their monarchs were infallible, despite the problems with bribes, crazy spending habits, and extravagant life styles. How do you placate a people that don't want to hear anything else? You issue a presidential apology.
Compare the Presidential Pardon for Hawaii with those issued to the Japanese-Americans. They were given compensation for the land seized from them during World War II. Was a similar offer given to Hawaii? No. The reason is because we didn't actually seize land from them. They sold it to us. The Hawaiian people wanted an apology, and they received it.
I am not sure why you claim this makes no sense at all, because it makes perfect sense to me. I can some it up in one word: politics.
Let's take at what other people have to say about this apology you claim admits fault.
Hawaii Divided Against Itself Cannot Stand by Bruce Fein
Finding (13) repeats falsehoods in the Apology Resolution. Contrary to its assertions, the Monarchy was overthrown without the collusion of the United States or its agents;
It is a very interesting report. It is extremely detailed, and covers a lot of sources. I couldn't do it justice without quoting extensively from it, so I leave it to you to read and weigh it's arguments against a document that was discussed for 1 hour in Senate with only 5 participants in the discussion. Even then, it only passed 3 to 2. It passed Congress in even less time. Last time I checked the Senate had 100 members. Why such a small sampling unless it was intended to be pushed through (which it was)?
E Pluribus Unum? Not in Hawaii
The Apology Resolution distorted historical truths. It falsely claimed that the U.S. participated in the wrongful overthrow of Queen Liliuokalani in 1893. The U.S. remained strictly neutral. It provided neither arms, nor economic assistance, nor diplomatic support to a band of Hawaiian insurgents, who prevailed without firing a single shot, largely because neither the Native Hawaiian numerical majority nor the queen's own government resisted the end of the Hawaiian Kingdom. The queen authored her own ouster by planning a coup against the Hawaii Constitution to recapture monarchical powers that had been lost in a strong democratic current. She later confided to Sen. George Hoar that annexation to the U.S. was the best thing that could have happened to Native Hawaiians.
Take a careful look at both of these sources. They cover a lot of the unscrupulous methods used to get the Presidential Apology approved. This further shows that is was nothing more then a political maneuver.
In summary, I believe it is proven way beyond a reasonable doubt that the Presidential Apology was a sham.
Lorrin A. Thurston, Revolutionist
Let's take a review of your bullet points. First we have a Hawaiian citizen that was elected into office pressure the monarch to end discrimination based on ancestry by modifying the Constitution. Isn't this what democracy is supposed to be about?
I repeat, the Bayonet Constitution, had nothing to do with the United States. To claim this is to claim that every person who's ancestors’' owned slaves is responsible for slavery (using the parallel you introduced).
The rest of your points happened after the incident on 1893, and are not relevant to the accusations made. Thurston was not an agent of the United States. To imply that he was is patently false. There is no evidence to suggest he ever was other then a person's individual income? Yes, he was motivated to work with the United States, but that doesn't make him a puppet, or an agent, or what ever word you want to use. Politicians do that. It hasn't changed since the founding of our country.
Let's go back to Thomas Jefferson a second. Why did he keep his slaves when he claimed he was opposed to them? Financial reasons. It appears that belief went back in politics since day one of the United States.
Back to Law School(ing)
You are quoting statements that apply to all states in general, not just Hawaii. Remember, the topic is "The State of Hawaii should have a unique right to secede", emphasis mine.
The Supreme Court Ruling indicated that Texas does not have that unique right, and as such, it goes to Hawaii as well. By supposing a right that every state has (under process), it counters the original argument about the unique right you claim Hawaii should have.
Question Commentary
You asked me why I am responding with the clause "trick question". The answer is simple. The exact way you word certain questions takes into account details I do not believe have been proven yet. If I answered them without clarifying this point, I would be admitting "facts" that have not been proven yet, and would force me to make a false statement.
I have no questions for my opponent this round, as he has already conceeded the point I was trying to make. The time line is crucial leading up to the events where the provisional government took control of Hawaii.
Conclusion
A close review of the time line and all parties involved in these historical events clearly show the United States was not responsible for the overthrow of the monarchy, but rather their own actions caused the series of events that led to their down fall.
My opponent would like us to take political maneuvering as fact, when the evidence clearly shows that is what it is.
I look forward to my opponent's closing statement.
reply posted on 23-3-2008 @ 08:31 PM by semperfortis
Tournament Round 3
Semperfortis V TLomon
"The State of Hawaii should have a unique right to secede from the United States, if it so chooses".
Semper’s Closing:
What I have proven to you in this debate:
• That the United States Government invaded a Sovereign Nation and replaced the Government of that Nation by force.
• That my opponent has contradicted himself on many occasions, including his assertion that “The Hawaiian People petitioned the United States for annexation; all while posting links showing conclusively that AMERICAN Landowners and Investors were responsible for this action”.
• My opponent even went so far as to make sure we were aware that “foreigners owning land in Hawaii had the right to vote”. Contradicting his assertion again, “that it was the Hawaiian people who actually petitioned for annexation”. (Can’t have it both ways now can we?)
• The Hawaiian Monarch was removed forcibly from the Throne by Representatives of the United States acting on behalf of the United States.
• That two different Presidents of the United States agreed with me to the point of producing formal papers and an official apology on the subject.
• I have proven that my opponents main point of contention against secession, The Supreme Court Ruling in Texas V White, allows for certain exceptions in a States Right to secede.
• That the framers of the American Constitution advocated a States right to secede.
• That no less than FIVE of the original 13 States, signed the Constitution with the understanding they had the right to secede if they so chose.
I have proven that
"The State of Hawaii should have a unique right to secede from the United States, if it so chooses".
My opponents contradictions are Legion, his assertion that the Presidential Apology is a political move, a weak attempt to politicize this debate and not worthy of your attention; his very base for this debate, the ruling in Texas V White, proven to support my contention in this debate.
Remember the framers of the Constitution, the very authors of the document my opponent uses to remove a base freedom from the Hawaiian people. THEY believed in the right to secede.
My opponent says the Constitutional Author’s opinion has no bearing as it was so long ago. The same argument used to dismiss the Constitution anytime it gets inconvenient; such as now to my opponent. Following that line of thinking, we have no rights under the Constitution, according to my opponent, that “HE” does not think are to old or outmoded.
Perhaps MOST IMPORTANTLY is the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.
Cornel Law
Emphasis Mine
At the end of the day remember this:
The Constitution of the United States DOES NOT ADDRESS SECSSION. FACT
The Tenth Amendment reserves ALL POWERS not delegated to the United States by the Constitution; such as secession, Nor prohibited by it; again such as secession to the States Respectively, or to the people. FACT
Remember this.
No matter how my opponent may spin this, what he may politicize or how many times he may contradict himself; this can not be denied.
The Tenth Amendment of the Constitution.
My opponent continues to insist the Bayonet Constitution had nothing to do with Americans. This is patently false and although has been shown before, I will re-illustrate it here.
Emphasis Mine.
History of Hawaii
More proof of American involvement where my opponent says there is none:
Same reference Link:
Readers and Judges, these are facts, not political rhetoric, trick questioning or contradictions.
Summation:
My opponent has used political rhetoric, Wording such as “Trick Questions” and “Political Manipulation” and the issue of “Slavery” to move you from the purely specific issue addressed by this debate. One I have proven to you is accurate and specifically correct.
In this debate it has been proven that:
The Law gives specific allowances for secession.
Hawaii has a very unique history to include the forcible take over of their legitimate Sovereign Government by the United States.
Including a Presidential Apology
The authors of the United States Constitution believed in the “Rights of Secession”.
The United States Constitution says nothing about secession.
The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution gives specifically; “All Powers to the States and the People” not delegated or prohibited by the Constitution.
In point of fact, it is quite clear that:
"The State of Hawaii should have a unique right to secede from the United States, if it so chooses".
Thank you,
TLomon for your time and attention in an excellent debate.
I would also like to, once again, thank TheVagabond for his tireless efforts in the smooth running of this forum.
Semper
Semperfortis V TLomon
"The State of Hawaii should have a unique right to secede from the United States, if it so chooses".
Semper’s Closing:
What I have proven to you in this debate:
• That the United States Government invaded a Sovereign Nation and replaced the Government of that Nation by force.
• That my opponent has contradicted himself on many occasions, including his assertion that “The Hawaiian People petitioned the United States for annexation; all while posting links showing conclusively that AMERICAN Landowners and Investors were responsible for this action”.
• My opponent even went so far as to make sure we were aware that “foreigners owning land in Hawaii had the right to vote”. Contradicting his assertion again, “that it was the Hawaiian people who actually petitioned for annexation”. (Can’t have it both ways now can we?)
• The Hawaiian Monarch was removed forcibly from the Throne by Representatives of the United States acting on behalf of the United States.
• That two different Presidents of the United States agreed with me to the point of producing formal papers and an official apology on the subject.
• I have proven that my opponents main point of contention against secession, The Supreme Court Ruling in Texas V White, allows for certain exceptions in a States Right to secede.
• That the framers of the American Constitution advocated a States right to secede.
• That no less than FIVE of the original 13 States, signed the Constitution with the understanding they had the right to secede if they so chose.
I have proven that
"The State of Hawaii should have a unique right to secede from the United States, if it so chooses".
My opponents contradictions are Legion, his assertion that the Presidential Apology is a political move, a weak attempt to politicize this debate and not worthy of your attention; his very base for this debate, the ruling in Texas V White, proven to support my contention in this debate.
Remember the framers of the Constitution, the very authors of the document my opponent uses to remove a base freedom from the Hawaiian people. THEY believed in the right to secede.
My opponent says the Constitutional Author’s opinion has no bearing as it was so long ago. The same argument used to dismiss the Constitution anytime it gets inconvenient; such as now to my opponent. Following that line of thinking, we have no rights under the Constitution, according to my opponent, that “HE” does not think are to old or outmoded.
Perhaps MOST IMPORTANTLY is the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Cornel Law
Emphasis Mine
At the end of the day remember this:
The Constitution of the United States DOES NOT ADDRESS SECSSION. FACT
The Tenth Amendment reserves ALL POWERS not delegated to the United States by the Constitution; such as secession, Nor prohibited by it; again such as secession to the States Respectively, or to the people. FACT
Remember this.
No matter how my opponent may spin this, what he may politicize or how many times he may contradict himself; this can not be denied.
The Tenth Amendment of the Constitution.
My opponent continues to insist the Bayonet Constitution had nothing to do with Americans. This is patently false and although has been shown before, I will re-illustrate it here.
signed the Bayonet Constitution stripping the rights of Asians to vote in elections, and placing income and property requirements on voters limiting the electorate to wealthy native Hawaiians, Americans, and Europeans.
Emphasis Mine.
History of Hawaii
More proof of American involvement where my opponent says there is none:
This resolution explicitly apologized "to Native Hawaiians on behalf of the people of the United States for the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii on January 17, 1893... and the deprivation of the rights of Native Hawaiians to self-determination."
Same reference Link:
Readers and Judges, these are facts, not political rhetoric, trick questioning or contradictions.
Summation:
My opponent has used political rhetoric, Wording such as “Trick Questions” and “Political Manipulation” and the issue of “Slavery” to move you from the purely specific issue addressed by this debate. One I have proven to you is accurate and specifically correct.
In this debate it has been proven that:
The Law gives specific allowances for secession.
Hawaii has a very unique history to include the forcible take over of their legitimate Sovereign Government by the United States.
Including a Presidential Apology
The authors of the United States Constitution believed in the “Rights of Secession”.
The United States Constitution says nothing about secession.
The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution gives specifically; “All Powers to the States and the People” not delegated or prohibited by the Constitution.
In point of fact, it is quite clear that:
"The State of Hawaii should have a unique right to secede from the United States, if it so chooses".
Thank you,
TLomon for your time and attention in an excellent debate.
I would also like to, once again, thank TheVagabond for his tireless efforts in the smooth running of this forum.
Semper
reply posted on 23-3-2008 @ 09:29 PM by TLomon
So here we are. The final post of the debate. A great deal has been stated by both Semperfortis and myself. I take it upon you to read what was
posted. Read the links. Evaluate all the data, and not just take the popular spin on what happened. Try to find the truth.
Revolutions Aren't Formed Overnight
Although my opponent would have us believe the time line of events is not relevant to what occurred in 1893, understanding all of the events that led up to the revolution are crucial to realizing why it happened.
* Hawaiian Declaration of Rights (1839)
* Constitution for the Hawaiian Islands (1840)
* Great Mahele (1848)
* Constitution of the Kingdom of Hawaii (1887)
All of these were written and ratified by the monarch at the time without intervention from the United States. All of these laid the ground work for the future revolution in 1893. When the Queen attempted to change the Constitution that formed the foundation of Hawaii's government, the people revolted. The Queen supports this statement in her own autobiography, indicating that she was approached in 1888 regarding this possibility - years before any alleged United States involvement.
The claims differentiating American ancestry with Hawaiian ancestry as contradictory is also misleading. This was the purpose of the constitutional changes. The people petitioning the United States had American ancestry yet were born in Hawaii making them citizens. Both statements were correct. There is no contradiction.
The revolution occurred because the voting populace of Hawaii refused to have their rights taken away. The United States moved troops into specific locations to protect American property and lives. When moving into position, they lowered their flags (that would be the United States flag) and saluted the Queen. This was a sign of respect, and further indication that there was never intimidation as claimed by my opponent.
The Marines Didn't Do It
After the Provisional Government took control of Hawaii, through no action of the United States, they petitioned repeatedly for territory status. The motives for this are irrelevant, as we all know it was for personal gain. President Cleveland repeatedly denied these requests, as he considered the Queen a friend. He simply did not want to believe that his friend was at fault.
Originally, the Blount Report showed the United States marines at fault for overthrowing the monarchy. This report had that conclusion already in mind before it was even investigated. The fact remains that Blount refused to admit evidence into the report that exonerated the marines. He refused to interview witnesses from all sides of the parties. What witnesses he did interview he twisted and warped their words to get the conclusion that he already wanted.
While the Morgan Report was being investigated, this all came out during Grand Jury Hearings. People interviewed for the Blount report stated that Blount lied about what they had said. Parties from all side of the rebellion were interviewed. All evidence was reviewed, submitted, and included in the report. The findings showed the marines were innocent. Why is this still an issue?
* The Blount Report
* The Morgan Report
* How the Morgan Report repudiates the Blount Report
Presidential Propaganda
Although President Clinton issued a Presidential Apology with "full support" of the Senate and Congress, the actual debate process was a sham. Only 5 senators debated for just an hour, with an end result of 3 to 2. That was not an accurate representation of what our own government believes, but rather an agenda that was pushed by waiting for the rest of the Senate to retire for the night.
Popular opinion was what President Clinton was concerned about. The evidence published in the letter of apology was faulty, and that is clearly shown by those who were present during the debate. It was a majority of the people who were present, not the majority of the Senate or Congress as a whole. Historical fact was their biggest issue. In summary, it was propaganda, plain and simple.
* 1993 U.S. Apology Resolution
(EXTRA LINK REMOVED BY DEBATE MODERATOR)
(EXTRA LINK REMOVED BY DEBATE MODERATOR)
Legal Tap Dancing
The Constitution that was written in 1776 by our founding fathers has been proven to be a document in need of corrections. The amendments prove that. There are twenty-seven of them. That is twenty-seven changes to the original document that my opponent feels is infallible. Our founding fathers had slaves. This has already been proven to be wrong in our society, yet my opponent feels this is the framework we need for a foundation. What was correct then is not correct now. The Constitution is not the original document our founding fathers scribed.
The Supreme Court's job is to interpret constitutional law. My opponent would have us believe that Texas v. White has no bearing on this case. However, it clearly shows that no state has a unique right to secede. A certain process has to be followed, and no short cuts are allowed. He uses the argument that if all states have that right, Hawaii should have a unique clause for it. That is faulty logic. Hawaii has the same rights as any other state, and does not need special treatment past that point.
Conclusion
I want to thank my esteemed opponent, Semperfortis, for a great fight. I also want to thank him for a great avatar. Thanks go to TheVagabond for his diligent work in making this debate possible.
Moderator Note: This post has been edited to enforce the 3 reference limit for closing statements (4 links total- two are from the same domain). The matter is now resolved and shall be disregarded for purposes of judging.
[edit on 23-3-2008 by The Vagabond]
Revolutions Aren't Formed Overnight
Although my opponent would have us believe the time line of events is not relevant to what occurred in 1893, understanding all of the events that led up to the revolution are crucial to realizing why it happened.
* Hawaiian Declaration of Rights (1839)
* Constitution for the Hawaiian Islands (1840)
* Great Mahele (1848)
* Constitution of the Kingdom of Hawaii (1887)
All of these were written and ratified by the monarch at the time without intervention from the United States. All of these laid the ground work for the future revolution in 1893. When the Queen attempted to change the Constitution that formed the foundation of Hawaii's government, the people revolted. The Queen supports this statement in her own autobiography, indicating that she was approached in 1888 regarding this possibility - years before any alleged United States involvement.
The claims differentiating American ancestry with Hawaiian ancestry as contradictory is also misleading. This was the purpose of the constitutional changes. The people petitioning the United States had American ancestry yet were born in Hawaii making them citizens. Both statements were correct. There is no contradiction.
The revolution occurred because the voting populace of Hawaii refused to have their rights taken away. The United States moved troops into specific locations to protect American property and lives. When moving into position, they lowered their flags (that would be the United States flag) and saluted the Queen. This was a sign of respect, and further indication that there was never intimidation as claimed by my opponent.
The Marines Didn't Do It
After the Provisional Government took control of Hawaii, through no action of the United States, they petitioned repeatedly for territory status. The motives for this are irrelevant, as we all know it was for personal gain. President Cleveland repeatedly denied these requests, as he considered the Queen a friend. He simply did not want to believe that his friend was at fault.
Originally, the Blount Report showed the United States marines at fault for overthrowing the monarchy. This report had that conclusion already in mind before it was even investigated. The fact remains that Blount refused to admit evidence into the report that exonerated the marines. He refused to interview witnesses from all sides of the parties. What witnesses he did interview he twisted and warped their words to get the conclusion that he already wanted.
While the Morgan Report was being investigated, this all came out during Grand Jury Hearings. People interviewed for the Blount report stated that Blount lied about what they had said. Parties from all side of the rebellion were interviewed. All evidence was reviewed, submitted, and included in the report. The findings showed the marines were innocent. Why is this still an issue?
* The Blount Report
* The Morgan Report
* How the Morgan Report repudiates the Blount Report
Presidential Propaganda
Although President Clinton issued a Presidential Apology with "full support" of the Senate and Congress, the actual debate process was a sham. Only 5 senators debated for just an hour, with an end result of 3 to 2. That was not an accurate representation of what our own government believes, but rather an agenda that was pushed by waiting for the rest of the Senate to retire for the night.
Popular opinion was what President Clinton was concerned about. The evidence published in the letter of apology was faulty, and that is clearly shown by those who were present during the debate. It was a majority of the people who were present, not the majority of the Senate or Congress as a whole. Historical fact was their biggest issue. In summary, it was propaganda, plain and simple.
* 1993 U.S. Apology Resolution
(EXTRA LINK REMOVED BY DEBATE MODERATOR)
(EXTRA LINK REMOVED BY DEBATE MODERATOR)
Legal Tap Dancing
The Constitution that was written in 1776 by our founding fathers has been proven to be a document in need of corrections. The amendments prove that. There are twenty-seven of them. That is twenty-seven changes to the original document that my opponent feels is infallible. Our founding fathers had slaves. This has already been proven to be wrong in our society, yet my opponent feels this is the framework we need for a foundation. What was correct then is not correct now. The Constitution is not the original document our founding fathers scribed.
The Supreme Court's job is to interpret constitutional law. My opponent would have us believe that Texas v. White has no bearing on this case. However, it clearly shows that no state has a unique right to secede. A certain process has to be followed, and no short cuts are allowed. He uses the argument that if all states have that right, Hawaii should have a unique clause for it. That is faulty logic. Hawaii has the same rights as any other state, and does not need special treatment past that point.
Conclusion
I want to thank my esteemed opponent, Semperfortis, for a great fight. I also want to thank him for a great avatar. Thanks go to TheVagabond for his diligent work in making this debate possible.
Moderator Note: This post has been edited to enforce the 3 reference limit for closing statements (4 links total- two are from the same domain). The matter is now resolved and shall be disregarded for purposes of judging.
[edit on 23-3-2008 by The Vagabond]
Pages: ^^TOP^^
