.png)
Greetings Mr. Gowans,
The Kingdom of Hawaii exists.
Please help to expose the information that the U.S. has been hiding from the public.
I enjoy reading your informative articles and hope that you'll help to expose some of our issues that have been kept from the people over time.
It appears that the Kingdom of Hawaii was one of the FALSE FLAG Operations and actually making the numbers from 53 to 54.
Reference:
In 1893, there was a Military Invasion in Hawaii.
See: https://iolani-theroyal.blogspot.com/2023/07/the-legitimate-government-in-hawaii_47.html
In 1969, a news release verified the facts.
See: https://theiolani.blogspot.com/2021/08/the-legitimate-government-in-hawaii_3.html
I have found that there were more than 153 Hawaiians who were killed, scalped, hung, drowned, guillotined, shot etc. Other researcher(s) found that more than 800 were killed.
See: https://theiolani.blogspot.com/2020/02/hawaiian-kingdom-factsevidence.html
Also, the VALOR OF IGNORANCE by Homer Lea shows a U.S. strategic map affecting Hawaii, Aetearoa, and the Samoan Islands:
U.S. Interested in Hawaii for a L O N G Time - Evidence from the VALOR OF IGNORANCE by Home Lea ----note the STRATEGIC MAP of Hawaii, the Aetearoa Islands,, and the Samoan Islands:
See: https://www.historynet.com/homer-lea-author-of-the-valor-of-ignorance/
The United States, Great Britain, and France gave a Protectorate to Kamehameha III - Kauikeaouli in 1854. The United States, Great Britain, and France breached the Protectorate's stipulations.
Kamehameha III - Kauikeaouli also passed a Neutrality Law in 1854 which was breached by the United States, Great Britain, and France..
U.S. President Grover Cleveland Gave Hawaii Back to Queen Liliuokalani Three (3x) Times.
See:
AUG
3
The Legitimate Government in Hawaii Series: Repost - U.S. President Gave Hawaii Back to Queen Liliuokalani 3X!, the Secret Information of the Seizure of Hawaii Exposes More Proof of Wrongs by the U.S. and Validating the Existence of the Hawaiian Kingdom
Repost:
U.S. President Gave Hawaii Back to Queen Liliuokalani 3X!, the Secret Information of the Seizure of Hawaii Exposes More Proof of Wrongs by the U.S. and Validating the Existence of the Hawaiian Kingdom (Part 1 of 3)
U.S. President Gave Hawaii Back to Queen Liliuokalani 3X!, the Secret Information of the Seizure of Hawaii Exposes More Proof of Wrongs by the U.S. and Validating the Existence of the Hawaiian Kingdom
Reviewed by Amelia Gora (2019)
The Hawaiian Monarchy Restored - article in the HAWAII HOLOMUA appeared in 1893:
See:
Tuesday, October 24, 2017
U.S. President Cleveland Gave Hawaii Back to Queen Liliuokalani Twice (2x), With Legal and Researched Information Showing the Existence of the Kingdom of Hawaii
The article covers the facts that U.S. President Cleveland Gave Hawaii Back Again in 1894, and again in 1897.
and
The Secret Information of Seizure of Hawaii Exposes More Proof of Wrongs by the U.S.
."Archives takes wraps off 1899 Senate transcript, Secret debate on U.S. seizure of Hawaii revealed"
Reference: https://iolani-theroyalhawk.blogspot.com/2019/09/pirate-eyes-on-hawaii-series-archives.html
Honolulu Star-Bulletin, Vol. 58, No. 32, Saturday, February 1, 1969
The following are important excerpts of the above article:
"WASHINGTON (AP) - Now it can be told--what happened during the longest of three secret Senate cessions, during the Spanish-American War, a debate over whether to take over Hawaii."
"The debate of nearly three hours on that day - May 31, 1898 - and in two secret sessions the previous month had remained locked up until last week. Then at the request of a historian who noted gaps in the Congressional Record, the Senate passed a resolution authorizing the National Archives to take the wraps off the debate transcript."
"The government's only explanation for the long suppression of the debate records is that they had been long forgotten."
"THE SECRECY WAS clamped on during a debate over whether to seize the Hawaiian Islands - called the Sandwich Islands then - or merely developing leased areas of Pearl Harbor to reinforce the U.S. fleet iat Manila Bay."
"PEARL HARBOR, ALREADY UNDER LEASE, Stewart argued, wouldn't be much use until costly dredging operations opened the entrance channel. "Either we must have the Sandwich Islands," he declared, "or the administration must recall Dewey."
"THE UNITED STATES ANNEXED the Hawaiian Islands five weeks after that debate. But before the Senate reopened its doors that day, Morgan steered the discussion back to Cuba, the original cause of the war with Spain."
"The first secret session, April 25, 1898, involved technical and emotional debate over wording the declaration of war and why it or some accompanying resolution did not formally recognize the independence of Cuba or at least declare the Cubans to have the rights of belligerents in the conflict."
"THE SENATE ENDED UP BY ACCEPTING the House passed version reading that "war and the same is hereby declared to exist and that war has existed since the 21st of April" - four days earlier."
"Dropped from the final declaration was a Senate proposed tagline requiring the administration to "prosecute said war to a successful conclusion."
"Sen. Stephen White of California joined the unanimous vote for war "even with that mild prevarication" about when the war started."
**************
Note - The following Lies are documented in the above article:
U.S. debate on whether to take over Hawaii occurred five (5) years AFTER taking over
Hawaii, a neutral, friendly, non-violent nation in a planned move since 1840.
PEARL HARBOR WAS UNDER LEASE
ANNEXATION OF HAWAII WAS A LIE
WAR WITH SPAIN WAS MADE WITHOUT THE SENATE APPROVAL because War
started/existed "four days earlier"
Through a concerted effort by American Missionary families in the Hawaiian Islands, and supported by the United States Presidents, military, Federal employees, etc., including a planned group who signed the Secret Treaty of Verona in 1822, the move to usurp Monarchial governments began with the target including the Hawaiian Kingdom/Kingdom of Hawaii/Sandwich Islands/Hawaiian Islands/Hawaiian archipelago/Ko Hawaii Pae Aina/He Mokupuni Pae Aina o Hawaii.
1822 - Secret Treaty of Verona signed by Austria, France, Prussia, Russia, Great Britain, United States, and the Vatican - complemented in maintaining obedience among the people. The goal was to break down Monarchial governments worldwide and move towards a one-world order/new world order.
1840 - United States Presidents helped to premeditate the annexation/takeover of a neutral, friendly, non-violent nation since the time of U.S. President Tyler.
Other U.S. Presidents planning annexation of Hawaii were:
U.S. President Taylor
U.S. President Fillmore
U.S. President Pierce
U.S. President Johnson
U.S. President Grant
U.S. President Harrison
Note: The above names and more appeared in a 1897 newspaper article with information from the General, ex-Secretary of State John Foster who directed the usurpation of Queen Liliuokalani in 1893.
Reference: http://iolani-theroyalhawk.blogspot.com/2018/11/united-states-secretary-of-state-john-w.html
1892 - Premeditation to take over the Kingdom of Hawaii is recorded. See: http://www.opednews.com/Diary/More-Evidence-on-Pearl-Har-by-Amelia-Gora-110607-440.html theiolani.blogspot.com http://myweb.ecomplanet.com/GORA8037
1893 - Researcher Shane Lee found the Pearl Harbor Coaling Station article revealing Premeditation on the part of the U.S. in the New YorkTimes newspapers dated 1893 - January 9, 1893 posted - he found it in 1997 thereabouts.
Criminal invasion and dethronement of Hawaii's Queen Liliuokalani. We were invaded by the USS BOSTON with gatling guns, Horitzer cannons. The U.S. military surrounded her and held her at gunpoint.
Evidence of Genocide against our Hawaiian people posted showing that Tongues of our people were pulled, cut off. 800 subjects were beheaded according to oral history. See: http://iolani-theroyalhawk.blogspot.com/2016/11/genocide-repost-hawaiians-got-their.html
150+ were recorded to have been beheaded by guillotine on the Big Island. Other articles posted at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PkUxPlwombA
1893 - December. U.S. President Cleveland Gave Hawaii Back to Queen Liliuokalani.
1894 - U.S. President Cleveland restored Queen Liliuokalani to the throne. See: http://iolani-theroyalhawk.blogspot.com/2018/04/vol-vii-no-700-part-1a-us-president.html
1897 - Queen Liliuokalani took Hawaii back 4 million acres of Kingdom of Hawaii land, documented through the Red Ribbon document. See references below.
1897 - President Cleveland Gave Hawaii Back to Queen Liliuokalani.http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf…
1897 - General, ex- Secretary of State John Foster revealed the Premeditation plans of the United States Presidents with the intent to usurp the Hawaiian Kingdom by the United States Presidents since 1840.
Reference: http://iolani-theroyalhawk.blogspot.com/2018/11/united-states-secretary-of-state-john-w.html
1898 - United States Senate violated our Neutrality. See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MO6zyAoG-QM
Note: Joint Resolution does not apply to us. It is a domestic law of the 48 States - the contiguous states.
1898 - April and May. Secret information of Seizure of Hawaii published in 1969 or 71 years later.
"The debate of nearly three hours on that day - May 31, 1898 - and in two secret sessions the previous month had remained locked up until last week. Then at the request of a historian who noted gaps in the Congressional Record, the Senate passed a resolution authorizing the National Archives to take the wraps off the debate transcript."
1898 - August 12.
HAWAII REPORTS, Volume 11 - IN RE AH HO, et. al. shows on page 665 "In the exercise of the power conferred by the first of these two provisions, the President of the United States, on August 12, 1898, directed by proclamation, that "the civil, judicial and military powers in question shall be exercised by the officers of the Republic of Hawaii, as it existed just prior to the transfer of sovereignty, subject to his power to remove such officers and to fil vacancies," and after reiterating the second of these and other provisions of the Resolution, further directed that, "under these various provisions, the Government of the islands will proceed without interruption." The intention of Congress was to continue the existing government of the islands in operation without interruption, except in so far as it might be inconsistent with the Constitution or treaties of the United States or with the terms of the Resolution. Subject to this limitation only, the judicial power was to continue as it existed just prior to the transfer of sovereignty."
"Article 82 of the Constitution of Hawaii vested the judicial power of the Republic in one Supreme Court and in such inferior Courts as the Legislature might, from time to time, establish; and Article 85 provided: "The Judicial power shall extend to all cases in law and equity, arising under the Constitution and Laws of the Republic, and Treaties; to all cases affecting Public Ministers and Consuls, and to all cases of Admiralty and Maritime Jurisdiction."....
Reference:
HAWAII REPORTS, Volume 11, RH 345.4 H31 v.11 (date of the case is January 1899)
1899 - The United States of America became two nations: (1) United States and (2) American Empire.
Reference: PEACOCK vs. Republic of Hawaii Case (1899), HAWAII REPORTS, Archives, Main Library, and Supreme Court Law Library, Honolulu, Oahu.
President McKinley "directed" and "proclaimed" Hawaii to be a Territory
1900 - Organic Act - there's no metes and bounds.
1903 - Sanford B. Dole took away the Hawaiian language - Genocide.
1915 - Queen Liliuokalani was placed on the throne for one day. (Paradise of thePacific Magazine)
1916 - Nations which agreed to the 1822 Secret Treaty of Verona to break down Monarchy governments worldwide met. Evidence is shown in the Congressional records.
Reference:
www.rvbeypublications.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/treatyveronajesuits.pdf
under the secret treaty of Verona to suppress popular governments in the American Republics is the basis of the Monroe doctrine. This secret treaty sets forth clearly the conflict between monarchial government and popular government and the government …
1917 - Queen Liliuokalani died. She was placed on the throne to be Queen for a Day and celebrate the Pan Pacific Day/Hawaii Tourism Authority with U.S. President Woodrow Wilson as the entities President.
Queen Liliuokalani denied signing a Trust Deed with the fraud Trust created in 1909. She had created her Trust in 1872 leaving her hanai/adopted daughter to care for her lands, interests, etc.
Upon her death, the Fraud Trust conveyed her remains to the Territory of Hawaii, etc. Her home called Washington Place, a leased land was also transferred to the Territory of Hawaii.
Note: The Fraud Trust collects rents, leases and conveys $14 million dollars plus to the United States for securities, bonds, etc.
The Fraud Trustees were the same parties who were administrators of the Bernice Pauahi Bishop Estates, helped to usurp the Queen, and were also the Trustees who created the Fraud Trust of Queen Liliuokalani in 1909.
Queen Liliuokalani's Will also documents her denial of signing a Trust deed with the criminal deviants.
The court of original jurisdiction which remains in the Hawaiian Kingdom Supreme Court did adjudicate the criminals and made null and void the trusts of Bernice Pauahi Bishop, and Queen Liliuokalani.
Bernice Pauahi Bishop's next-of-kin Kalola (female) a cousin and stepsister's descendants/heirs exist. The descendants/heirs are also the hanai/adopted heirs/descendants of Kahakuhaakoi/Kekua (female) who was named as Kaeha/Kamakaeha/Makaeha/Lydia/Liliuokalani/Queen Liliuokalani's trustee since 1872.
1921 - Hawaiian Homelands illegal. Kuhio was only a Prince Regent. He accepted a settlement of Waikiki Beach front lands for the claims that the Queen's Trust deed was a fraud.
Note: Prince Kuhio was a treasonous person, he moved to annex Hawaii to the United States, etc.
1933 - "The United States went “Bankrupt” in 1933 and was declared so by President Roosevelt by Executive Orders 6073, 6102, 6111 and Executive Order 6260 [See: Senate Report 93-549, pgs 187 & 594 under the “Trading With the Enemy Act” {Sixty-Fifth congress, Sess. I, chs. 105,106, October 6, 1917}, and as codified at 12 U.S.C.A. 95a}. The several States of the Union then pledged the faith and credit thereof to the aid of the National Government, and formed numerous socialist committees, such as the “Council of State Governments”, “Social Security Administration” etc., to purportedly deal with the economic “Emergency”. These Organizations operated under the “Declaration of INTERdependence” of January 22, 1937, and published some of their activities in “The Book Of The States.” The 1937 Edition of The Book Of The States openly declared that the people engaged in such activities as the Farming/Husbandry Industry had been reduced to mere feudal “Tenants” on their Land [Book Of The States, 1937, pg. 155]." Reference: article by John Nelson, Legal Researcher.
1939 - Army Navy and Federal officials developed the Territory - celebration of 40 years newspaper
1988 - President Reagan's era, it was found that there is no treaty that holds the Kingdom of Hawaii to the United States....they are making the Archipelago as a National Park - they have no treaty. Oct. 4 - they could not find the laws.
There is no treaty of cession, there was no war. Queen Liliuokalani acquiesced.
Researcher Kilikina Kekumano https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2dfm7MeXfM
1997 - Governor Cayetano began to sell Magnesium to China by allowing them to mine our minerals.
1998 - Williamson Chang began his legal research on the Joint Resolution, etc. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PkUxPlwombA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ZWO0you8JM
2000 - U.S. Supreme Court Justices Memo reveals there was no legal annexation:
2001 - Kilikina Kekumano began her research in Maryland.
2010+ - Williamson Chang Reveals the Illegal Joint Resolution of July 7, 1898. See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ZWO0you8JM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PkUxPlwombA
Kilikina Kekumano found Queen Liliuokalani's Opposition to Annexation "red ribbon documents" - it is a lien. She maintains that we are Hawaii Ko Pae Aina.
2015 - Misprison of Treason/Treason committed by Nai Aupuni/Na'i Aupuni, et. als. - Kilikina Kekumano.
Nai Aupuni /Na'i Aupuni is there to steal Everything that you have, committing a crime, Misprison of Felony, Treason/Misprison of Treason, Genocide, Misprison of Felony is committed by the United States Department of Interior. See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MO6zyAoG-QM
2016 - http://amelia-gora.blogspot.com/ update - Rents sent to the State, Federal....Rents becomes Land Lord Liens, etc.
Nai Aupuni/Na'i Aupuni, the Military et. als. are Not our Friends.
2017 - Alodio Titles were gifted to kanaka maoli/kanaka Hawaii maoli by Kamehameha III - Kauikeaouli. They are "forever" lands. To Aliens, they could only have Fee Simple titles or less than alodio, 30 year leases, freehold.
Disabilities were that the United States and Great Britain could not own land in the Hawaiian Islands.
2018 - U.S. President Cleveland Gave Hawaii Back to Queen Liliuokalani Twice. Article posted for all to see.
Reference:
2018 - "Constitutional Separation of Powers. I looked it up and found within the Separation of Powers was "The Doctrine of Political Question". In this doctrine it speaks of land if created by another Country can not be decided in court. It is of a political matter between the Executives." - cases dismissed with prejudice - Joyclynn Acosta.
"Land cases, especially developments they claim to own portions of LCA/RP according to the Doctrine it may appear to be with in the courts jurisdiction but it is not, It is of a political matter." in other words, all issues of our nation falls under "The Doctrine of Political Question" found within the Separation of Powers".
Separation of Powers was "The Doctrine of Political Question". In this doctrine it speaks of land if created by another Country can not be decided in court. It is of a political matter between the Executives. The Judge took a look at the letter asked a few questions flipped thru his books and accepted my oral motion to dismiss with prejudice. The prosecutor had nothing else to rebut and the Judge rendered a decision to grant the Dismissal with Prejudice. I know this was not of my doing but the grace of ke Akua that worked this case. You see we were not suppose to appear that because the case was already dismissed w/out prejudice."
"Yes when you look at, especially developments they claim to own portions of LCA/RP according to the Doctrine it may appear to be with in the courts jurisdiction but it is not, It is of a political matter." - Joyclynn Acosta (2018)
Reference:
University of Hawaii Law School Head and Professor Williamson Chang's research shows that there was no annexation.
2018 - Letters and memorandum written by Dr. Alfred M. deZayas – the United Nations Independent Expert under the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights – to members of the judiciary of the State of Hawai‘i advising the courts “should not lend themselves to a flagrant violation of the rights of the land title holders” and “must not enable or collude in the wrongful taking of private lands”, based on the understanding that Hawaii is a “sovereign nation-state in continuity” which is “under a strange form of occupation by the United States resulting from an illegal military occupation and fraudulent annexation.”
Reference:
Summary
President McKinley "directed" and "proclaimed" Hawaii to be a Territory. Too late though because President Cleveland Gave Hawaii back to Queen Liliuokalani years earlier.
President McKinley also started a War against Spain over Cuba without the approval of Congress, and contrary to the U.S. Constitution.
Identity Theft documented in the 1912 Pa Pelekane Case. The "Territory" of the United States was documented by the Attorney General to be "the successor of the Kingdom of Hawaii", which was a fraud. The heirs and successors are the Kamehameha family's, and Not an alien government who did premeditate the takeover of a neutral, friendly, non-violent nation.
Research proves that the U.S. is illegal in the Hawaiian Kingdom/Kingdom of Hawaii, lied about Annexation, etc., and did premeditate the usurpation of the Hawaiian Kingdom/Kingdom of Hawaii with plans noted since 1840.
Researchers includes Kilikina Kekumano, Joyclynn Acosta, University of Hawaii Professor Williamson Chang, U.S. Supreme Court Justices, and Dr. Alfred deZayas of the United Nations.
Note about Dr. Alfred deZayas:
He previously served as Secretary of the U.N. Human Rights Committee and Senior Lawyer with the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights. He is a Cuban-born U.S. citizen with a J.D. from Harvard Law School. He currently teaches at the Geneva School of Diplomacy and International Law.
aloha.
more references:
p.s. The identity thieves/imposter government or the non-government sued some of us in Court, over the Crown Lands, which really belongs to Kamehameha III - Kauikeaouli, 'himself, his heirs and successors forever, exclusively' not the developed Territory which turned into a State through Executive Order of U.S. President Eisenhower with documented opposition by one of Kamehameha's descendants, heirs, and successors named Harold Abel Cathcart, first cousin of some of our great grandmother Mele Kauweloa.
Evidence found recently shows that U.S. President Cleveland Gave Hawaii Back to Queen Liliuokalani. See: President Cleveland Gave Hawaii Back to Queen Liliuokalani https://docs.google.com/leaf? id= 0B6Gs4av5Se1wN2JkZjMxMzEtMDIyN i0...
Also see at: http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf…
Opposition to Annexation was documented. See: Opposition to Annexation - page 1 (researcher Kiliwehi Kekumano found the true Opposition in Maryland) https://docs.google.com/leaf… to Annexation Page 2 https://docs.google.com/leaf…... Opposition to Annexation page 3 https://docs.google.com/leaf… to Annexation - page 4 https://docs.google.com/leaf….
Joint Resolution is Not a Treaty. Annexation by the U.S. was illegal. U.S. is an Occupier, an Illegal Occupier See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2dfm7MeXfM and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fjELyim8q80
U.S. President Cleveland left office in 1897 and U.S. President William McKinley became President. McKinley was shot and died from gangrene after the Army, Navy, and Federal personnel "developed the territory".
Identity theft was identified in the PA PELEKANE case of 1912. Reference: HAWAIIAN REPORTS, 1912, Archives/Main Library/Supreme Court Law Library, Honolulu, Oahu, Hawaii.
Other references and other information:
Premeditation to take over Pearl Harbor - Page 1 (found by researcher Shane Lee) https://docs.google.com/leaf…... Premeditation to take over Pearl Harbor - page 2 https://docs.google.com/leaf…... Opposition to Annexation - page 1 (researcher Kiliwehi Kekumano found the true Opposition in Maryland) https://docs.google.com/leaf… to Annexation Page 2 https://docs.google.com/leaf…... Opposition to Annexation page 3 https://docs.google.com/leaf… to Annexation - page 4 https://docs.google.com/leaf…...
More References: http://amelia-gora.blogspot.com/…/november-2016-update-brie… theiolani.blogspot.com http://myweb.ecomplanet.com/GORA8037
SAYS GOVERNMENT SUPPORTS TRUSTS; Mr. Hitchcock Condemns System of Army and Navy Contracts. ARMOR PLATE AS EXAMPLE Beef Trust, Shipbuilding Trust, and Railroads Cited -- Bates Calls Cleveland a Receptive Candidate.
WASHINGTON, Feb. 20. -- That the Federal Government, which is supposed to be after the trusts, is making large contracts with them and paying them the people's money, was charged by Representative Hitchcock (Dem., Neb.) in the course of a vigorous criticism of the army and navy expenditures in the H...
http://www.opednews.com/Diary/More-Evidence-on-Pearl-Har-by-Amelia-Gora-110607-440.html
More Alodio Titles Information -Includes Kamehameha III ...
Amelia Gora-Kanaka Maoli Truth : Legal Notice No. 2016 ...
IOLANI - The Royal Hawk: Alodio Land Titles are "Forever ...
Maui Court Case - Kahoma: Identity Theft by the entity ...
Maui Court Case - Kahoma
Corruption, Fraud Found Uncovering Identity Thieves, Sham ...
Legal Notice: Alodio/Ano Alodio Land Owners/Royal Families ...
News from the Hawaiian Kingdom: September 2016
Amelia Gora-Kanaka Maoli Truth
OpEdNews|The Royal Families In The Hawaiian Islands and ...
Developer challenged while removing occupiers’ belongings ...
Letters to the U.S. President(s) - Clinton, Bush, and ...
Reference:
All 774 issues of the IOLANI - The Royal Hawk news on the web published by Amelia Gora
https://he-mokupuni-pae-aina-o-hawaii.blogspot.com/2018/04/important-historical-events-keep-for.html
United States Secretary of State John W. Foster "helped ...
United States Secretary of State John W. Foster "helped direct the overthrow of the Hawaiian Monarchy ... 2015 · The Following Alii Nui/Alii Names Are Part of the Royal Families/ Royal Persons Who Are Not Subject to the Laws Posted by Amelia Gora on January 23, 2015 at 5:53pm in Politics View Discussions Royal Persons are Not Subject to the ...Hawaiian Kingdom: February 2019 - he-mokupuni-pae-aina-o ...
See more images of john foster article by amelia gora. ... Nov 12, 2015 · Posted by Amelia Gora on October 6, 2015 at 11:01pm in Politics View Discussions Hawaiian Kingdom Records Nos. 2015-1006 Matters of the Treaty which supersedes State Laws, etc. Sereno Edwards Bishop - Wikipedia ...IOLANI - The Royal Hawk: 2018
Dec 30, 2018 · The Legal Families of Queen Liliuokalani - posted 12/30/2018 ... 735 issues of the IOLANI-The Royal Hawk news on the web, etc. ... John Gora married Mary Castro and had Amelia Gora (and siblings). Queen Kapiolani was the administrator of Princess Poomaikelani's lands. She was a hanai/adopted daughter of Kaluakini, a Kamehameha descendant who ...Images of John Foster's Article Posted by Amelia Gora
bing.com/imagesAmelia Gora-Kanaka Maoli Truth : COLOR CODED CHART FOR ...
other researches by Amelia Gora. ... John Foster Dulles. 52nd U.S. Secretary of State 12th cousin 2 times removed via William Mainwaring. ... Posted by hwnwahine. No comments: Post a Comment. Newer Post Older Post Home. Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom) Translate. Picture Window theme.Diary: The Royal Families In The Hawaiian ... - OpEdNews
The Royal Families in the Hawaiian Islands by Amelia Gora ...
Feb 01, 2015 · The Following Alii Nui/Alii Names Are Part of the Royal Families/ Royal Persons Who Are Not Subject to the Laws Posted by Amelia Gora on January 23, 2015 at 5:53pm in Politics View Discussions Royal Persons are Not Subject to the Laws; UPDATING THE ROYAL FAMILIES GENEALOGIES by Amelia Gora (2011; 2014; 2015) The following…James Campbell Trust - Based on Fraud Land Claims
James Campbell Trust - Based on Fraud Land Claims ... and articles posted by Amelia Gora. Tags: Conspiracies, Evidence, Hawaiian, Heirs, Issues, Kamehameha, Kingdom, Legal, Treason. ... Amelia Gora, sister of John F. Gora did speak as John F. Gora (wife Melissa-Ann Kamala Gora) behalf based on the 1781 Bill of Rights of Rights where a ...Amelia Gora-Kanaka Maoli Truth : Keep for the Records with ...
Senator Owen: I wish to put in the Record the secret treaty of Verona of November 22, 1822, showing what this ancient conflict is between the rule of the few and the rule of the many. I wish to call the attention of the Senate to this treaty because it is the threat of this treaty which was the basis of the Monroe doctrine.Legal Notice: Judicial Tribunal - News from the Hawaiian ...
Hawaiian Kingdom Records Nos. 2015-0410 and 2015-0420 Matters of the Treaty which supersedes State Laws, etc. - The Fifteenth (15th) Judicial Tribunal Meeting Held On July 17, 2015, Affecting USA/United States of America Treaty with the Hawaiian Kingdom, DEC. 20, 1849/1850 from Amelia Gora, Royal Person, Royal Family Member, One of Kamehameha III - Kauikeaouli's Heirs and …
Reference:
U.S. President Cleveland Rocks! He Gave Hawaii Back to Queen Liliuokalani 3X ! McKinley Should have been IMPEACHED!
https://iolani-theroyalhawk.blogspot.com/…/hawaiian-kingdom… U.S. President Cleveland gave Hawaii Back 3X - 1893, 1894, and 1897 ….which means the claims by U.S. President McKinley is Fraud and he should have been Impeached....he also started the Spanish- American War WITHOUT the approval of U.S. Congress!
Reference:
Wednesday, September 18, 2019
Hawaiian Kingdom is the Best Series: U.S. President Cleveland Gave Hawaii Back 3 X
Friday, August 16, 2019
Vol VII No. 766 - Hawaiian Monarchy Restored Evidence:: The Return 1893, 1894, and 1897 Mandated by the Preservation, Protection, and Defense of the U.S. Constitution
Hawaiian Monarchy Restored Evidence: The Return 1893, 1894, and 1897 Mandated by the Preservation, Protection, and Defense of the U.S. Constitution
or
WHY THE ENTITY IS AND REMAINS AN ILLEGAL STATE OF HAWAII AND TRULY ARE THE SQUATTERS OF HAWAII
Researched by Amelia Gora (2019)
The following shows more reasons why /the Evidence of Why the Hawaiian Monarchy Government/ Hawaiian Kingdom is and remains the true, lawful government in the Hawaiian Islands/Hawaiian archipelago:
December 07, 1893
U.S. President Cleveland Gave Hawaii Back to Queen Liliuokalani Twice (2x), With Legal and Researched Information Showing the Existence of the Kingdom of Hawaii
U.S. President Cleveland Gave Hawaii Back to
Queen Liliuokalani Twice (2x),
With Legal and Researched Information Showing The Existence of the Kingdom of Hawaii
Review by Amelia Gora (2017)
The following are important facts, issues reveals that the Kingdom of Hawaii continues to exist:
1894
U.S. President Cleveland Gave Hawaii back to Queen Liliuokalani:
"When Mr. Willis started he (U.S. President Cleveland) gave him two letters. One was addressed to Dole, President of the Provisional Government, in which he addressed Dole as "Great and good friend," and at the close, being a devout Christian, he asked "God to take care of Dole." This was the first letter. The letter of one President to another; of one friend to another. The second letter was addressed to Mr. Willis, in which Mr. Willis was told to upset Dole at the first opportunity and put the deposed Queen back on her throne. This may be diplomacy, but it is no kin to honesty."
Reference:
1897
U.S. President Cleveland Again Gave Hawaii back to Queen Liliuokalani.
see: President Cleveland Gave Hawaii Back to Queen Liliuokalani https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B6Gs4av5Se1wN2JkZjMxMzEtMDIyNi00YW…
2011
The following testimony by Kingdom of Hawaii Patriots reveals the following:
Reference: http://maoliworld.com/forum/topics/pono-alert-long-live-the-2
2015 -
![]()
https://www.civilbeat.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/image5.jpg" alt="McKinley"/>
Williamson Chang · Princeton University
Williamson Chang · Princeton University
Amelia Gora · Works at Self-Employed
Reply by on
PRESIDENTIAL PROBLEMS
All have now been revised thoroughly by Mr. Cleveland, in preparation for their appearance in book form. vivii
viii
ix
The belief that, notwithstanding the overweening desire among our people for personal xand selfish rewards of effort, there still exists, underneath it all, a sedate and unimpaired interest in the things that illustrate the design, the traditions, and the power of our Government, has induced me to present in this volume the details of certain incidents of national administration concerning which I have the knowledge of a prominent participant.
These incidents brought as separate topics to the foreground of agitation and discussion the relations between the Chief Executive and the Senate in making appointments to office, the vindication and enforcement of the Monroe Doctrine, the protection of the soundness and integrity of our finances and currency, and the right of the general Government to overcome all obstructions to the exercise of its functions in every part of our national domain.
Those of our people whose interest in the general features of the incidents referred to was actively aroused at the time of their occurrence will perhaps find the following pages of some value for reference or as a means of more complete information. xi
I shall do no more in advocacy of the merits of this book than to say that as a narrative of facts it has been prepared with great care, and that I believe it to be complete and accurate in every essential detail.
When our original thirteen States, actuated by “a decent respect for the opinions of mankind,” presented to the world the causes which impelled them to separate from the mother country and to cast off all allegiance to the Crown of England, they gave prominence to the declaration that “the history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny 4over these States.” This was followed by an indictment containing not less than eighteen counts or accusations, all leveled at the King and the King alone. These were closed or clenched by this asseveration: “A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.” In this arraignment the English Parliament was barely mentioned, and then only as “others,” with whom the King had conspired by “giving his assent to their act of pretended legislation,” and thus giving operative force to some of the outrages which had been put upon the colonies.
It is thus apparent that in the indictment presented by the thirteen colonies they charged the King, who in this connection may properly be considered as the Chief Executive of Great Britain, with the crimes and offenses which were their justification for the following solemn and impressive decree:
In these circumstances it should not surprise us to find that when, on the footing of the Declaration of Independence, the first scheme of government was adopted for the revolted States, it contained no provision for an executive officer to whom should be intrusted administrative power and duty. Those who had suffered and rebelled on account of the tyranny of an English King were evidently chary of subjecting themselves to the chance of a repetition of their woes through an abuse of the power that might necessarily devolve upon an American President. 6
Thus, under the Articles of Confederation, “The United States of America,” without an executive head as we understand the term, came to the light; and in its charter of existence it was declared that “the articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual.”
Let us not harbor too low an opinion of the Confederation. Under its guidance and direction the war of the Revolution was fought to a successful result, and the people of the States which were parties to it became in fact free and independent. But the Articles of Confederation lacked the power to enforce the decree they contained of inviolable observance by every State; and the union, which under their sanction was to be permanent and lasting, early developed symptoms of inevitable decay.
It thus happened that within ten years after the date of the Articles of Confederation their deficiencies had become so manifest that representatives of the people were again assembled in convention to consider the situation and to devise a plan of government that would form “a more perfect union” in place of the crumbling structure which had so lately been proclaimed as perpetual.
The pressing necessity for such action cannot 7be more forcibly portrayed than was done by Mr. Madison when, in a letter written a short time before the convention, he declared:
A plan was first adopted by the convention which provided for the selection of the President by the Congress, or, as it was then called, by the National Legislature. Various other plans were proposed, but only to be summarily rejected in favor of that which the convention had apparently irrevocably decided upon. There were, however, among the members, some who, notwithstanding the action taken, lost no opportunity to advocate, with energy and sound reasons, the substitution of a mode of electing the President more in keeping with the character of the office and the genius of a popular government. This fortunate persistence 10resulted in the reopening of the subject and its reference, very late in the sessions of the convention, to a committee who reported in favor of a procedure for the choice of the Executive substantially identical with that now in force; and this was adopted by the convention almost unanimously.
This imperfect review of the incidents that led up to the establishment of the office of President, and its rescue from dangers which surrounded its beginning, if not otherwise useful, ought certainly to suggest congratulatory and grateful reflections. The proposition that the selection of a President should rest entirely with the Congress, which came so near adoption, must, I think, appear to us as something absolutely startling; and we may well be surprised that it was ever favorably considered by the convention.
In the scheme of our national Government the Presidency is preëminently the people’s office. Of course, all offices created by the Constitution, and all governmental agencies existing under its sanction, must be recognized, in a sense, as the offices and agencies of the people—considered either as an aggregation constituting the national body politic, or some of its divisions. When, however, I now speak of the 11Presidency as being preëminently the people’s office, I mean that it is especially the office related to the people as individuals, in no general, local, or other combination, but standing on the firm footing of manhood and American citizenship. The Congress may enact laws; but they are inert and vain without executive impulse. The Federal courts adjudicate upon the rights of the citizen when their aid is invoked. But under the constitutional mandate that the President “shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed,” every citizen, in the day or in the night, at home or abroad, is constantly within the protection and restraint of the Executive power—none so lowly as to be beneath its scrupulous care, and none so great and powerful as to be beyond its restraining force.
In view of this constant touch and the relationship thus existing between the citizen and the Executive, it would seem that these considerations alone supplied sufficient reason why his selection should rest upon the direct and independent expression of the people’s choice. This reason is reinforced by the fact that inasmuch as Senators are elected by the State legislatures, Representatives in Congress by the votes of districts or States, and judges are appointed by the President, it is only in the selection 12of the President that the body of the American people can by any possibility act together and directly in the equipment of their national Government. Without at least this much of participation in that equipment, we could hardly expect that a ruinous discontent and revolt could be long suppressed among a people who had been promised a popular and representative government.
I do not mean to be understood as conceding that the selection of a President through electors chosen by the people of the several States, according to our present plan, perfectly meets the case as I have stated it. On the contrary, it has always seemed to me that this plan is weakened by an unfortunate infirmity. Though the people in each State are permitted to vote directly for electors, who shall give voice to the popular preference of the State in the choice of President, the voters throughout the nation may be so distributed, and the majorities given for electors in the different States may be such, that a minority of all the voters in the land can determine, and in some cases actually have determined, who the President should be. I believe a way should be devised to prevent such a result.
It seems almost ungracious, however, to find 13fault with our present method of electing a President when we recall the alternative from which we escaped, through the final action of the convention which framed the Constitution.
It is nevertheless a curious fact that the plan at first adopted, vesting in Congress the presidential election, was utterly inconsistent with the opinion of those most prominent in the convention, as well as of all thoughtful and patriotic Americans who watched for a happy result from its deliberations, that the corner-stone of the new Government should be a distinct division of powers and functions among the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches, with the independence of each amply secured. Whatever may have been the real reasons for giving the choice of the President to Congress, I am sure those which were announced in the convention do not satisfy us in this day and generation that such an arrangement would have secured either the separateness or independence of the Executive department. I am glad to believe this to be so palpable as to make it unnecessary for me to suggest other objections, which might subject me to the suspicion of questioning the wisdom or invariably safe motives of Congress in this relation. It is much more agreeable to acknowledge gratefully that a 14danger was avoided, and a method finally adopted for the selection of the Executive head of the Government which was undoubtedly the best within the reach of the convention.
The Constitution formed by this convention has been justly extolled by informed and liberty-loving men throughout the world. The statesman who, above all his contemporaries of the past century, was best able to pass judgment on its merits formulated an unchallenged verdict when he declared that “the American Constitution is the most wonderful work ever struck off at a given time by the brain and purpose of man.”
We dwell with becoming pride upon the intellectual greatness of the men who composed the convention which created this Constitution. They were indeed great; but the happy result of their labor would not have been saved to us and to humanity if to intellectual greatness there had not been added patriotism, patience, and, last but by no means least, forbearing tact. To these traits are we especially indebted for the creation of an Executive department, limited against every possible danger of usurpation or tyranny, but, at the same time, strong and independent within its limitations.
The Constitution declares: “The executive 15power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America,” and this is followed by a recital of the specific and distinctly declared duties with which he is charged, and the powers with which he is invested. The members of the convention were not willing, however, that the executive power which they had vested in the President should be cramped and embarrassed by any implication that a specific statement of certain granted powers and duties excluded all other executive functions; nor were they apparently willing that the claim of such exclusion should have countenance in the strict meaning which might be given to the words “executive power.” Therefore we find that the Constitution supplements a recital of the specific powers and duties of the President with this impressive and conclusive additional requirement: “He shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” This I conceive to be equivalent to a grant of all the power necessary to the performance of his duty in the faithful execution of the laws.
The form of Constitution first proposed to the convention provided that the President elect, before entering upon the duties of his office, should take an oath, simply declaring: “I will faithfully execute the office of President of the 16United States.” To this brief and very general obligation there were added by the convention the following words: “and will to the best of my judgment and power preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.” Finally, the “Committee on Style,” appointed by the convention, apparently to arrange the order of the provisions agreed upon, and to suggest the language in which they would be best expressed, reported in favor of an oath in these terms: “I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States”; and this form was adopted by the convention without discussion, and continues to this day as the form of obligation which binds the conscience of every incumbent of our Chief Magistracy.
It is therefore apparent that as the Constitution, in addition to its specification of especial duties and powers devolving upon the President, provides that “he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed,” and as this was evidently intended as a general devolution of power and imposition of obligation in respect to any condition that might arise relating to the execution of the laws, so it is likewise apparent 17that the convention was not content to rest the sworn obligation of the President solely upon his covenant to “faithfully execute the office of President of the United States,” but added thereto the mandate that he should preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution, to the best of his judgment and power, or, as it was afterward expressed, to the best of his ability. Thus is our President solemnly required not only to exercise every power attached to his office, to the end that the laws may be faithfully executed, and not only to render obedience to the demands of the fundamental law and executive duty, but to exert all his official strength and authority for the preservation, protection, and defense of the Constitution.
I have thus far presented considerations which while they have to do with my topic are only preliminary to its more especial and distinct discussion. In furtherance of this discussion it now becomes necessary to quote from the Constitution the following clause found among its specification of presidential duty and authority:
or
WHY THE ENTITY IS AND REMAINS AN ILLEGAL STATE OF HAWAII AND TRULY ARE THE SQUATTERS OF HAWAII
Researched by Amelia Gora (2019)
The following shows more reasons why /the Evidence of Why the Hawaiian Monarchy Government/ Hawaiian Kingdom is and remains the true, lawful government in the Hawaiian Islands/Hawaiian archipelago:
December 07, 1893
U.S. President Cleveland Gave Hawaii Back to Queen Liliuokalani Twice (2x), With Legal and Researched Information Showing the Existence of the Kingdom of Hawaii
U.S. President Cleveland Gave Hawaii Back to
Queen Liliuokalani Twice (2x),
With Legal and Researched Information Showing The Existence of the Kingdom of Hawaii
Review by Amelia Gora (2017)
The following are important facts, issues reveals that the Kingdom of Hawaii continues to exist:
1894
U.S. President Cleveland Gave Hawaii back to Queen Liliuokalani:
"When Mr. Willis started he (U.S. President Cleveland) gave him two letters. One was addressed to Dole, President of the Provisional Government, in which he addressed Dole as "Great and good friend," and at the close, being a devout Christian, he asked "God to take care of Dole." This was the first letter. The letter of one President to another; of one friend to another. The second letter was addressed to Mr. Willis, in which Mr. Willis was told to upset Dole at the first opportunity and put the deposed Queen back on her throne. This may be diplomacy, but it is no kin to honesty."
Reference:
—The Inter-Ocean, Chicago, February 2, 1894. Author: Orator, Lawyer Robert Ingersoll
http://maoliworld.com/forum/topics/exposing-false-flag-operations-in-hawaii-or-additional-facts
1897
U.S. President Cleveland Again Gave Hawaii back to Queen Liliuokalani.
see: President Cleveland Gave Hawaii Back to Queen Liliuokalani https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B6Gs4av5Se1wN2JkZjMxMzEtMDIyNi00YW…
2011
The following testimony by Kingdom of Hawaii Patriots reveals the following:
2015 -
On Annexation of Hawaii, Scalia Fails Constitutionality Test
A joint resolution of Congress doesn't empower the United States to acquire another country. Only a treaty can do that.
MARCH 7, 2015·By WILLIAMSON CHANG
In Civil Beat recently, Justice Antonin Scalia, associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, made two critical points on the annexation of Hawaii: First, he stated that a joint resolution of the United States could acquire the territory of Hawaii — a foreign, sovereign and independent nation state. Second, he stated that the Constitution permitted the use of a joint resolution instead of a treaty.
He was wrong on both points.
First, a joint resolution is merely a law, an act of Congress. It has no power to acquire the territory of a foreign, sovereign state. If such a thing were possible, Hawaii itself could have, by an act of its Legislature, acquired the United States. Second, the only mode by which the United States could acquire Hawaii, an independent and sovereign nation like the United States, would be by treaty.
Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States
In answering a student’s question regarding the United States’ annexation of Hawaii, Supreme Court Justice Scalia overlooked important constitutional provisions.
Second, the acquisition of Hawaii by a joint resolution of Congress would undermine the Constitution. The use of a joint resolution in place of a treaty would be an “end run” around an enumerated power — the power over foreign affairs that is delegated solely to the president and the Senate. The House has no power as to foreign affairs and does not vote on or ratify treaties.
Moreover, the use of joint resolution to accomplish a treaty with a foreign sovereign undermines the super-majority required of the Senate as to the ratification of treaties. The Senate must ratify such measures by a two-thirds majority of those Senators present.
This is made clear in the U.S. Constitution, Article II, Clause 2: “[The President] shall have the Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur …”
The inability of President William McKinley to garner the necessary two-thirds vote in the Senate to ratify the Treaty of Annexation of 1897 led the administration to seek annexation by a mere act of Congress — a joint resolution. The administration could pass a joint resolution but not a treaty. This is precisely why McKinley attempted to annex by joint resolution.
President William McKinley, whose administration sought the annexation of Hawaii.
Many are ignorant of or deceived about the joint resolution and the acquisition of Hawaii. Many do not know the specifics of the U.S. Constitution or the history of Hawaii. Yet, we expect more from Justice Scalia, for he has great power over the future of Native Hawaiians. His exchange with Jacob Bryan Aki, as published in Civil Beat, showed a surprising lack of constitutional knowledge. Aki, a Hawaiian student at George Washington University, asked Justice Scalia the following question during a class visit to the Supreme Court on Feb. 11:
“Does the Constitution provide Congress the power to annex a foreign nation through a joint resolution rather than a treaty?”
Scalia answered by first turning the question back at Aki. “Why would a treaty be needed,” he asked. “There is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits Congress from annexing a foreign state through the means of a joint resolution. If the joint resolution is passed through both the U.S. House and Senate, then signed by the president, it went through a ‘process.’ ”
Allen et al. vs. Scalia
Let us pretend that Scalia was on the floor of the U.S. Senate in the summer of 1898. Sen. William V. Allen of Nebraska and others would have reminded him that a joint resolution is only an act of Congress. It has no power to reach out and acquire foreign territory or a foreign country.
“A joint resolution if passed becomes a statute law. It has no other or greater force. It is the same as if it were entitled ‘an act.’ That is its legal classification,” said Allen. “It is therefore impossible for the government of the United States to reach across its boundaries into the dominion of another government and annex that government or the persons or property therein.
“But the United States may do so under the treaty making power, which I shall hereafter consider.”
In addition, Allen said, “Mr. President, how can a joint resolution such as this be operative? What is the legislative jurisdiction of Congress? Does it extend over Hawaii? May we in this anticipatory manner reach out beyond the sea and assert our authority under a resolution of Congress within the confines of that independent nation? Where is our right, our grant of power, to do this? Where do we find it?
“The joint resolution itself, it is admitted, amounts to nothing so far as carrying any effective force is concerned. It does not bring that country within our boundaries. It does not consummate itself.”
Moreover, Sen. Thomas Turley of Tennessee stated:
“It is admitted that if the Joint Resolution is adopted, the Republic of Hawaii can determine whether or not it will accept the provisions contained in the joint resolution. In other words, the adoption of the resolution does not consummate the transaction.
“The Republic of Hawaii does not become a part or the territory of the United States by the adoption of the joint resolution …”
Sen. John Coit Spooner of Wisconsin added his view: “Of course, our power would not be extraterritorial.”
United States Library of Congress
Sen. A.O. Bacon, who questioned the constitutionality of the United States’ proposed annexation of Hawaii.
Sen. A.O. Bacon of Georgia made the same point: “Under the law of the equal sovereignty of states, one independent and sovereign nation such as the United States cannot take another nation, such as Hawaii, by means or its own legislative act.”
Bacon noted that if the United States could take Hawaii by joint resolution, it could so take Jamaica. If that were true, any nation could acquire any other. Hawaii could annex the United States. “If the President of the United States can do it in the case of Hawaii, he can with equal propriety and legality do it in the case of Jamaica …”
Sen. Stephen White of California noted annexation by joint resolution was unprecedented: in American history: “… there is no instance where by a joint resolution it has been attempted not only to annex a foreign land far remote from our shores, but also to annihilate a nation, to withdraw it from the sovereign societies of the world as a government.”
On the issue of the constitutionality of the use of a joint resolution, Bacon made it clear: Hawaii could only be acquired by a Treaty. “If Hawaii is to be annexed, it ought certainly to be annexed by a constitutional method; and if by a constitutional method, it cannot be annexed, no Senator ought to desire its annexation.”
Finally, Bacon — one of the most senior members of the Senate — predicted that the annexation of Hawaii by joint resolution would do great damage to the Constitution and the Union.
“If we pass the joint resolution, we enter upon a revolution which shall convert this country from a peaceful country into a warlike country. If we pass the resolution, we transform this country from one engaged in its own concerns into one which shall immediately proceed to intermeddle with the concerns of all the world.
“If we pass the joint resolution, we inaugurate a revolution which shall convert this country from one designed for the advancement and the prosperity and the happiness of our citizens into one which shall seek its gratification in dominion and domination and foreign acquisition.”
Native Hawaiians have forgotten that many Americans stood with them in 1898. After all, the Treaty of 1897, the only legal means for taking Hawaii, failed not because the Senate of the Republic of Hawaii failed to ratify the Treaty. It was the United States Senate that did not ratify the Treaty.
In conclusion, the joint resolution could not acquire Hawaii. Moreover, it was unconstitutional. Justice Scalia’s comments are evidence of the pervasive and widespread falsehoods as to annexation that have spread to the highest political and judicial offices in the United States. The myth of annexation is a deliberate deception that has oppressed the people of Hawaii for 122 years.
Historic quotes above are from Volume 31 of the Congressional Record pages 6142 to 6712, the verbatim record of the Senate debate in 1898.
About the Author
CONTRIBUTOR
Williamson Chang
Williamson Chang is a professor of Law and member of the faculty senate at the University of Hawaii at Manoa. Professor Chang has been teaching at the University of Hawaii School of Law for 37 years. He specializes in water rights, Native Hawaiian rights, the legal history of Hawaii and conflict of laws.
Williamson Chang · Princeton University
Dear Dr. Conklin:
The Joint Resolution was not capable of ratifying the Treaty of 1897. The Treaty of 1897, drafted by representatives of both the Republic of Hawaii and the United States specified the manner in which the Treaty was to be ratified by both countries: Article VII of the Treaty states:
ARTICLE VII.
This treaty shall be ratified by the President of the United States, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, on the one part; and by the President of the Republic of Hawaii, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, in accordance with the constitution of said Republic, on the other; and the ratifications hereof shall be exchanged at Washington as soon as possible.
In witness whereof the respective plenipotentiaries have signed the above articles and have hereunto affixed their seals.
Done in duplicate at the city of Washington, this sixteenth day of June, one thousand eight hundred and ninety-seven.
Article VII is an agreement between the United States and the Republic of Hawaii that ratification shall take only a certain form: The United States shall ratified by “the President of the United States, and with the advice and consent of the Senate,”... This phrase clearly refers to Article II of the United States Constitution which provides as follows:
Article II, Section 2 [1] He [The President of the United States] shall have the power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties , provided two thirds of the Senators present concur,...”.
When a treaty, as agreed to by two nations, specifies the means of ratification, the parties must ratify in the manner so specified. A treaty is not deemed ratified unless done so by the terms both nations agreed. The Joint Resolution is an act of Congress, a law and mere legislation. The Joint Resolution required a majority vote of the House to pass. It went on to the Senate where it only required a majority vote to pass. Whether or not it received a two thirds vote is irrelevant. Article II, Section 2, [1] makes clear that the House does not participate in the ratification of a treaty with a foreign power—except in the case of a treaty by which Congress directly admits a foreign state as State in the Union. This was the case as to Texas.
Most important, the Republic of Hawaii did not consider the Joint Resolution to be ratification of the Treaty of 1897. The Republic of Hawaii considered the terms of the Joint Resolution to vary significantly, by the interpretation of the Republic of Hawaii, from the terms of the Treaty of Hawaii. These two instruments, the Treaty of 1897 and the Joint Resolution were different documents, with different meanings. A treaty is formed only when both nations have a perfect meeting of the minds—usually when both agree to the same document.
The Republic of Hawaii made its objection to the use of the Joint Resolution as ratification, which the United States claimed very clear. The letters from A.S. Hartwell, Special Envoy of the Republic of Hawaii that Hartwell sent to President McKinley in October of 1899 make clear that the Republic did not consider the Joint Resolution of Annexation to constitute ratification of the Treaty of 1897. In this first quote, Hartwell points out, as of October 25, 1899, that ratification by the United States did not ratify the Treaty. This statement was made long after the Joint Resolution became effective, July 7, 1898. Thus, the Republic did not consider the Joint Resolution be a ratification of the Treat.
Under the authority given to the President of Hawaii by the Hawaiian constitution, to negotiate a treaty of political union with the United States, subject to ratification by the Hawaiian Senate, such a treaty was negotiated and signed by the authorized plenipotentiaries of each country, and was ratified by the Hawaiian Senate but not by the United States Senate. Consequently, that instrument failed to accomplish or to become evidence of a cession of Hawaii to the United States.
See Letter of Alfred S. Hartwell, Special Agent of the Government of Hawaii in Washington D.C. to President McKinley, October 25, 1899. [From the Manuscript Collection the Papers of A.S. Hartwell, Archives of State of Hawaii].
General Hartwell specifically noted in his letter to President McKinley that the Joint Resolution was not a ratification:
Upon the enactment of the Newlands resolution in the place of a ratified treaty, and its full equivalent, I respectfully submit that something was required in the nature of a ratification whereby official notice could be given to Hawaii that the United States had agreed upon annexation.
The inchoate treaty provided in its seventh article for an exchange of ratifications “at Washington as soon as possible,” Until such exchange, or something equivalent to it, there could be no cession accomplished by mutual agreement.
See Letter of Alfred S. Hartwell, Special Agent of the Government of Hawaii in Washington D.C. to President McKinley, October 25, 1899. [From the Manuscript Collection the Papers of A.S. Hartwell, Archives of State of Hawaii].
The Treaty of 1897 was laid before the United States Senate during the fall of 1897. It was not withdrawn by the President. It still lay before the United States Senate in July of 1898 when the Senate debated the Joint Resolution. So long as the Treaty lay before the Senate, as ratified by the Senate of the Republic of Hawaii on September 9, 1897,—ratification according to Article VII of the Treaty was the only means by which the United States could conclude that treaty with the Republic of Hawaii.
Any other means, such as the use of a Joint Resolution is ruled out by the language the United States, itself, agreed to. Moreover, the use of the Joint Resolution violates the enumerated powers allocated over foreign affairs to the President and the United States Senate. Lastly, the last requirement of Article VII was never completed. There never was an exchange of ratifications in Washington as required by Article VII.
A.S. Hartwell, on behalf of the Republic of Hawaii pointed out to President McKinley that the terms of the Treaty of 1897 and the Joint Resolution of 1898 differed a to a critical term. As such, the two instruments have different terms. The Treaty of 1897 and the Joint Resolution cannot be combined to form a single Treaty. Hartwell pointed out that the treaty proposed June 16, 1897 and the Joint Resolution differed as to material terms:
The Treaty in its first article declares that “all the territory of and appertaining to the Republic of Hawaii is hereby annexed to the United States of America under the name of the Territory of Hawaii;” thus securing to Hawaii a distinct political status which is not secured by the wording in the Newlands resolution.
See Letter of Alfred S. Hartwell, Special Agent of the Government of Hawaii in Washington D.C. to President McKinley, October 25, 1899. [From the Manuscript Collection the Papers of A.S. Hartwell, Archives of State of Hawaii].
In conclusion, the Joint Resolution of 1898 30 Stat 750, did not ratify the Treaty of Annexation 1897 [June 16, 1897].
Very truly yours,
Williamson Chang,
Professor of Law, University of Hawaii at Manoa.
William S. Richardson School of Law.
The Joint Resolution was not capable of ratifying the Treaty of 1897. The Treaty of 1897, drafted by representatives of both the Republic of Hawaii and the United States specified the manner in which the Treaty was to be ratified by both countries: Article VII of the Treaty states:
ARTICLE VII.
This treaty shall be ratified by the President of the United States, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, on the one part; and by the President of the Republic of Hawaii, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, in accordance with the constitution of said Republic, on the other; and the ratifications hereof shall be exchanged at Washington as soon as possible.
In witness whereof the respective plenipotentiaries have signed the above articles and have hereunto affixed their seals.
Done in duplicate at the city of Washington, this sixteenth day of June, one thousand eight hundred and ninety-seven.
Article VII is an agreement between the United States and the Republic of Hawaii that ratification shall take only a certain form: The United States shall ratified by “the President of the United States, and with the advice and consent of the Senate,”... This phrase clearly refers to Article II of the United States Constitution which provides as follows:
Article II, Section 2 [1] He [The President of the United States] shall have the power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties , provided two thirds of the Senators present concur,...”.
When a treaty, as agreed to by two nations, specifies the means of ratification, the parties must ratify in the manner so specified. A treaty is not deemed ratified unless done so by the terms both nations agreed. The Joint Resolution is an act of Congress, a law and mere legislation. The Joint Resolution required a majority vote of the House to pass. It went on to the Senate where it only required a majority vote to pass. Whether or not it received a two thirds vote is irrelevant. Article II, Section 2, [1] makes clear that the House does not participate in the ratification of a treaty with a foreign power—except in the case of a treaty by which Congress directly admits a foreign state as State in the Union. This was the case as to Texas.
Most important, the Republic of Hawaii did not consider the Joint Resolution to be ratification of the Treaty of 1897. The Republic of Hawaii considered the terms of the Joint Resolution to vary significantly, by the interpretation of the Republic of Hawaii, from the terms of the Treaty of Hawaii. These two instruments, the Treaty of 1897 and the Joint Resolution were different documents, with different meanings. A treaty is formed only when both nations have a perfect meeting of the minds—usually when both agree to the same document.
The Republic of Hawaii made its objection to the use of the Joint Resolution as ratification, which the United States claimed very clear. The letters from A.S. Hartwell, Special Envoy of the Republic of Hawaii that Hartwell sent to President McKinley in October of 1899 make clear that the Republic did not consider the Joint Resolution of Annexation to constitute ratification of the Treaty of 1897. In this first quote, Hartwell points out, as of October 25, 1899, that ratification by the United States did not ratify the Treaty. This statement was made long after the Joint Resolution became effective, July 7, 1898. Thus, the Republic did not consider the Joint Resolution be a ratification of the Treat.
Under the authority given to the President of Hawaii by the Hawaiian constitution, to negotiate a treaty of political union with the United States, subject to ratification by the Hawaiian Senate, such a treaty was negotiated and signed by the authorized plenipotentiaries of each country, and was ratified by the Hawaiian Senate but not by the United States Senate. Consequently, that instrument failed to accomplish or to become evidence of a cession of Hawaii to the United States.
See Letter of Alfred S. Hartwell, Special Agent of the Government of Hawaii in Washington D.C. to President McKinley, October 25, 1899. [From the Manuscript Collection the Papers of A.S. Hartwell, Archives of State of Hawaii].
General Hartwell specifically noted in his letter to President McKinley that the Joint Resolution was not a ratification:
Upon the enactment of the Newlands resolution in the place of a ratified treaty, and its full equivalent, I respectfully submit that something was required in the nature of a ratification whereby official notice could be given to Hawaii that the United States had agreed upon annexation.
The inchoate treaty provided in its seventh article for an exchange of ratifications “at Washington as soon as possible,” Until such exchange, or something equivalent to it, there could be no cession accomplished by mutual agreement.
See Letter of Alfred S. Hartwell, Special Agent of the Government of Hawaii in Washington D.C. to President McKinley, October 25, 1899. [From the Manuscript Collection the Papers of A.S. Hartwell, Archives of State of Hawaii].
The Treaty of 1897 was laid before the United States Senate during the fall of 1897. It was not withdrawn by the President. It still lay before the United States Senate in July of 1898 when the Senate debated the Joint Resolution. So long as the Treaty lay before the Senate, as ratified by the Senate of the Republic of Hawaii on September 9, 1897,—ratification according to Article VII of the Treaty was the only means by which the United States could conclude that treaty with the Republic of Hawaii.
Any other means, such as the use of a Joint Resolution is ruled out by the language the United States, itself, agreed to. Moreover, the use of the Joint Resolution violates the enumerated powers allocated over foreign affairs to the President and the United States Senate. Lastly, the last requirement of Article VII was never completed. There never was an exchange of ratifications in Washington as required by Article VII.
A.S. Hartwell, on behalf of the Republic of Hawaii pointed out to President McKinley that the terms of the Treaty of 1897 and the Joint Resolution of 1898 differed a to a critical term. As such, the two instruments have different terms. The Treaty of 1897 and the Joint Resolution cannot be combined to form a single Treaty. Hartwell pointed out that the treaty proposed June 16, 1897 and the Joint Resolution differed as to material terms:
The Treaty in its first article declares that “all the territory of and appertaining to the Republic of Hawaii is hereby annexed to the United States of America under the name of the Territory of Hawaii;” thus securing to Hawaii a distinct political status which is not secured by the wording in the Newlands resolution.
See Letter of Alfred S. Hartwell, Special Agent of the Government of Hawaii in Washington D.C. to President McKinley, October 25, 1899. [From the Manuscript Collection the Papers of A.S. Hartwell, Archives of State of Hawaii].
In conclusion, the Joint Resolution of 1898 30 Stat 750, did not ratify the Treaty of Annexation 1897 [June 16, 1897].
Very truly yours,
Williamson Chang,
Professor of Law, University of Hawaii at Manoa.
William S. Richardson School of Law.
Williamson Chang · Princeton University
Dear Dr. Conklin:
The Joint Resolution was not capable of ratifying the Treaty of 1897. The Treaty of 1897, drafted by representatives of both the Republic of Hawaii and the United States specified the manner in which the Treaty was to be ratified by both countries: Article VII of the Treaty states:
ARTICLE VII.
This treaty shall be ratified by the President of the United States, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, on the one part; and by the President of the Republic of Hawaii, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, in accordance with the constitution of said Republic, on the other; and the ratifications hereof shall be exchanged at Washington as soon as possible.
In witness whereof the respective plenipotentiaries have signed the above articles and have hereunto affixed their seals.
Done in duplicate at the city of Washington, this sixteenth day of June, one thousand eight hundred and ninety-seven.
Article VII is an agreement between the United States and the Republic of Hawaii that ratification shall take only a certain form: The United States shall ratified by “the President of the United States, and with the advice and consent of the Senate,”... This phrase clearly refers to Article II of the United States Constitution which provides as follows:
Article II, Section 2 [1] He [The President of the United States] shall have the power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties , provided two thirds of the Senators present concur,...”.
When a treaty, as agreed to by two nations, specifies the means of ratification, the parties must ratify in the manner so specified. A treaty is not deemed ratified unless done so by the terms both nations agreed. The Joint Resolution is an act of Congress, a law and mere legislation. The Joint Resolution required a majority vote of the House to pass. It went on to the Senate where it only required a majority vote to pass. Whether or not it received a two thirds vote is irrelevant. Article II, Section 2, [1] makes clear that the House does not participate in the ratification of a treaty with a foreign power—except in the case of a treaty by which Congress directly admits a foreign state as State in the Union. This was the case as to Texas.
Most important, the Republic of Hawaii did not consider the Joint Resolution to be ratification of the Treaty of 1897. The Republic of Hawaii considered the terms of the Joint Resolution to vary significantly, by the interpretation of the Republic of Hawaii, from the terms of the Treaty of Hawaii. These two instruments, the Treaty of 1897 and the Joint Resolution were different documents, with different meanings. A treaty is formed only when both nations have a perfect meeting of the minds—usually when both agree to the same document.
The Republic of Hawaii made its objection to the use of the Joint Resolution as ratification, which the United States claimed very clear. The letters from A.S. Hartwell, Special Envoy of the Republic of Hawaii that Hartwell sent to President McKinley in October of 1899 make clear that the Republic did not consider the Joint Resolution of Annexation to constitute ratification of the Treaty of 1897. In this first quote, Hartwell points out, as of October 25, 1899, that ratification by the United States did not ratify the Treaty. This statement was made long after the Joint Resolution became effective, July 7, 1898. Thus, the Republic did not consider the Joint Resolution be a ratification of the Treat.
Under the authority given to the President of Hawaii by the Hawaiian constitution, to negotiate a treaty of political union with the United States, subject to ratification by the Hawaiian Senate, such a treaty was negotiated and signed by the authorized plenipotentiaries of each country, and was ratified by the Hawaiian Senate but not by the United States Senate. Consequently, that instrument failed to accomplish or to become evidence of a cession of Hawaii to the United States.
See Letter of Alfred S. Hartwell, Special Agent of the Government of Hawaii in Washington D.C. to President McKinley, October 25, 1899. [From the Manuscript Collection the Papers of A.S. Hartwell, Archives of State of Hawaii].
General Hartwell specifically noted in his letter to President McKinley that the Joint Resolution was not a ratification:
Upon the enactment of the Newlands resolution in the place of a ratified treaty, and its full equivalent, I respectfully submit that something was required in the nature of a ratification whereby official notice could be given to Hawaii that the United States had agreed upon annexation.
The inchoate treaty provided in its seventh article for an exchange of ratifications “at Washington as soon as possible,” Until such exchange, or something equivalent to it, there could be no cession accomplished by mutual agreement.
See Letter of Alfred S. Hartwell, Special Agent of the Government of Hawaii in Washington D.C. to President McKinley, October 25, 1899. [From the Manuscript Collection the Papers of A.S. Hartwell, Archives of State of Hawaii].
The Treaty of 1897 was laid before the United States Senate during the fall of 1897. It was not withdrawn by the President. It still lay before the United States Senate in July of 1898 when the Senate debated the Joint Resolution. So long as the Treaty lay before the Senate, as ratified by the Senate of the Republic of Hawaii on September 9, 1897,—ratification according to Article VII of the Treaty was the only means by which the United States could conclude that treaty with the Republic of Hawaii.
Any other means, such as the use of a Joint Resolution is ruled out by the language the United States, itself, agreed to. Moreover, the use of the Joint Resolution violates the enumerated powers allocated over foreign affairs to the President and the United States Senate. Lastly, the last requirement of Article VII was never completed. There never was an exchange of ratifications in Washington as required by Article VII.
A.S. Hartwell, on behalf of the Republic of Hawaii pointed out to President McKinley that the terms of the Treaty of 1897 and the Joint Resolution of 1898 differed a to a critical term. As such, the two instruments have different terms. The Treaty of 1897 and the Joint Resolution cannot be combined to form a single Treaty. Hartwell pointed out that the treaty proposed June 16, 1897 and the Joint Resolution differed as to material terms:
The Treaty in its first article declares that “all the territory of and appertaining to the Republic of Hawaii is hereby annexed to the United States of America under the name of the Territory of Hawaii;” thus securing to Hawaii a distinct political status which is not secured by the wording in the Newlands resolution.
See Letter of Alfred S. Hartwell, Special Agent of the Government of Hawaii in Washington D.C. to President McKinley, October 25, 1899. [From the Manuscript Collection the Papers of A.S. Hartwell, Archives of State of Hawaii].
In conclusion, the Joint Resolution of 1898 30 Stat 750, did not ratify the Treaty of Annexation 1897 [June 16, 1897].
Very truly yours,
Williamson Chang,
Professor of Law, University of Hawaii at Manoa.
William S. Richardson School of Law.
The Joint Resolution was not capable of ratifying the Treaty of 1897. The Treaty of 1897, drafted by representatives of both the Republic of Hawaii and the United States specified the manner in which the Treaty was to be ratified by both countries: Article VII of the Treaty states:
ARTICLE VII.
This treaty shall be ratified by the President of the United States, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, on the one part; and by the President of the Republic of Hawaii, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, in accordance with the constitution of said Republic, on the other; and the ratifications hereof shall be exchanged at Washington as soon as possible.
In witness whereof the respective plenipotentiaries have signed the above articles and have hereunto affixed their seals.
Done in duplicate at the city of Washington, this sixteenth day of June, one thousand eight hundred and ninety-seven.
Article VII is an agreement between the United States and the Republic of Hawaii that ratification shall take only a certain form: The United States shall ratified by “the President of the United States, and with the advice and consent of the Senate,”... This phrase clearly refers to Article II of the United States Constitution which provides as follows:
Article II, Section 2 [1] He [The President of the United States] shall have the power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties , provided two thirds of the Senators present concur,...”.
When a treaty, as agreed to by two nations, specifies the means of ratification, the parties must ratify in the manner so specified. A treaty is not deemed ratified unless done so by the terms both nations agreed. The Joint Resolution is an act of Congress, a law and mere legislation. The Joint Resolution required a majority vote of the House to pass. It went on to the Senate where it only required a majority vote to pass. Whether or not it received a two thirds vote is irrelevant. Article II, Section 2, [1] makes clear that the House does not participate in the ratification of a treaty with a foreign power—except in the case of a treaty by which Congress directly admits a foreign state as State in the Union. This was the case as to Texas.
Most important, the Republic of Hawaii did not consider the Joint Resolution to be ratification of the Treaty of 1897. The Republic of Hawaii considered the terms of the Joint Resolution to vary significantly, by the interpretation of the Republic of Hawaii, from the terms of the Treaty of Hawaii. These two instruments, the Treaty of 1897 and the Joint Resolution were different documents, with different meanings. A treaty is formed only when both nations have a perfect meeting of the minds—usually when both agree to the same document.
The Republic of Hawaii made its objection to the use of the Joint Resolution as ratification, which the United States claimed very clear. The letters from A.S. Hartwell, Special Envoy of the Republic of Hawaii that Hartwell sent to President McKinley in October of 1899 make clear that the Republic did not consider the Joint Resolution of Annexation to constitute ratification of the Treaty of 1897. In this first quote, Hartwell points out, as of October 25, 1899, that ratification by the United States did not ratify the Treaty. This statement was made long after the Joint Resolution became effective, July 7, 1898. Thus, the Republic did not consider the Joint Resolution be a ratification of the Treat.
Under the authority given to the President of Hawaii by the Hawaiian constitution, to negotiate a treaty of political union with the United States, subject to ratification by the Hawaiian Senate, such a treaty was negotiated and signed by the authorized plenipotentiaries of each country, and was ratified by the Hawaiian Senate but not by the United States Senate. Consequently, that instrument failed to accomplish or to become evidence of a cession of Hawaii to the United States.
See Letter of Alfred S. Hartwell, Special Agent of the Government of Hawaii in Washington D.C. to President McKinley, October 25, 1899. [From the Manuscript Collection the Papers of A.S. Hartwell, Archives of State of Hawaii].
General Hartwell specifically noted in his letter to President McKinley that the Joint Resolution was not a ratification:
Upon the enactment of the Newlands resolution in the place of a ratified treaty, and its full equivalent, I respectfully submit that something was required in the nature of a ratification whereby official notice could be given to Hawaii that the United States had agreed upon annexation.
The inchoate treaty provided in its seventh article for an exchange of ratifications “at Washington as soon as possible,” Until such exchange, or something equivalent to it, there could be no cession accomplished by mutual agreement.
See Letter of Alfred S. Hartwell, Special Agent of the Government of Hawaii in Washington D.C. to President McKinley, October 25, 1899. [From the Manuscript Collection the Papers of A.S. Hartwell, Archives of State of Hawaii].
The Treaty of 1897 was laid before the United States Senate during the fall of 1897. It was not withdrawn by the President. It still lay before the United States Senate in July of 1898 when the Senate debated the Joint Resolution. So long as the Treaty lay before the Senate, as ratified by the Senate of the Republic of Hawaii on September 9, 1897,—ratification according to Article VII of the Treaty was the only means by which the United States could conclude that treaty with the Republic of Hawaii.
Any other means, such as the use of a Joint Resolution is ruled out by the language the United States, itself, agreed to. Moreover, the use of the Joint Resolution violates the enumerated powers allocated over foreign affairs to the President and the United States Senate. Lastly, the last requirement of Article VII was never completed. There never was an exchange of ratifications in Washington as required by Article VII.
A.S. Hartwell, on behalf of the Republic of Hawaii pointed out to President McKinley that the terms of the Treaty of 1897 and the Joint Resolution of 1898 differed a to a critical term. As such, the two instruments have different terms. The Treaty of 1897 and the Joint Resolution cannot be combined to form a single Treaty. Hartwell pointed out that the treaty proposed June 16, 1897 and the Joint Resolution differed as to material terms:
The Treaty in its first article declares that “all the territory of and appertaining to the Republic of Hawaii is hereby annexed to the United States of America under the name of the Territory of Hawaii;” thus securing to Hawaii a distinct political status which is not secured by the wording in the Newlands resolution.
See Letter of Alfred S. Hartwell, Special Agent of the Government of Hawaii in Washington D.C. to President McKinley, October 25, 1899. [From the Manuscript Collection the Papers of A.S. Hartwell, Archives of State of Hawaii].
In conclusion, the Joint Resolution of 1898 30 Stat 750, did not ratify the Treaty of Annexation 1897 [June 16, 1897].
Very truly yours,
Williamson Chang,
Professor of Law, University of Hawaii at Manoa.
William S. Richardson School of Law.
Amelia Gora · Works at Self-Employed
Jr Kuroiwa sad to see that many kanaka maoli don't know the true history....know that Premeditation has been uncovered which shows the conspiracies, the pillaging, piracy of a neutral, friendly, non-violent nation by broke ass/bankrupt nations including the U.S. and England....readhttp://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9F0CE6DC1F3FEF33A2575AC0A9679C94629ED7CF for starters then read all 537 issues of the IOLANI - The Royal Hawk news on the web theiolani.blogspot.com or accelerate your learning by reading the latest Legal Notice to President Obama, Governor Ige, et. als. because the Royal Families still exist...the land owners, the true Hawaiian Kingdom exists whether anybody likes it or not...and are the only parties to the permanent Treaty of 1850 at http://theiolani.blogspot.com/2015/03/special-posting-saturday-3715.html oh by the way Scalia is bound by the U.S. Constitution because the treaty supersedes State, Federal laws....and it was locked in place before the usurpation of the American people as documented by the bankers Secret Constitution in 1871 with the information thanks to and by whistle blowers Karen Hudes, World Bank; Vladimir Putin, Russia - who denounces One World Order/New World Order, etc. which can be seen at http://maoliworld.ning.com/forum/topics/updated-chronological-history-of-our-queen-liliuokalani-by-amelia and http://maoliworld.ning.com/forum/topics/updated-chronological-history-of-our-queen-liliuokalani-by-amelia by the way appears that my letter is the only one on the whitehouse website http://www.whitehouse.gov/assets/formsubmissions/54/c1dc2d2b35964f0392b21da2d9b05b42.pdf bet you that even you don't know that the U.S.A. became the U.S. and the American Empire documented in court case Peacock vs. the Republic of Hawaii in 1899.....bet you didn't know that the treasonous persons/conspirators/pirates /pillagers also placed Queen Liliuokalani back on the throne for a day in 1915 to celebrate the European's Balboa who visited the Pacific Ocean in 1514, etc....... empower yourself with knowledge, then blast the hell out of those who lie.......and by the way spread the truth and deny that the entity House of Representatives turned conspirator, treasonous persons supported by the U.S. and the American Empire, turned Provisional government, then Republic of Hawaii, then Territory of Hawaii, and State of Hawaii by U.S. President Eisenhower's executive order, are successors to our Hawaiian Kingdom as claimed in "THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF THE TERRITORY OF HAWAII TO REGISTER AND CONFIRM ITS TITLE TO CERTAIN LAND SITUATE IN LAHAINA, ISLAND OF MAUI, TERRITORY OF HAWAII, AND KNOWN AS PA PELEKANE" (1912), HAWAII REPORTS Vol 21, Supreme Court of Hawaii, RH 345.4 H32 v.21 pg. 177
"That the Territory, as successor to the Kingdom of Hawaii, has obtained title to this lot by prescription."
There was no treaty of Annexation, the Kamehameha III - Kauikeaouli's heirs and successors exists and are parties to the 1850 Treaty of the Hawaiian Kingdom and the United States of America....,. ;) Many nations are watching us because we're from a neutral, friendly, non-violent nation and we're surrounded by Pirates/Pillagers etc....wicked lot.... aloha.........the best to Kanaka Maoli, Konohiki, Assistant Konohiki, and Friends
"That the Territory, as successor to the Kingdom of Hawaii, has obtained title to this lot by prescription."
There was no treaty of Annexation, the Kamehameha III - Kauikeaouli's heirs and successors exists and are parties to the 1850 Treaty of the Hawaiian Kingdom and the United States of America....,. ;) Many nations are watching us because we're from a neutral, friendly, non-violent nation and we're surrounded by Pirates/Pillagers etc....wicked lot.... aloha.........the best to Kanaka Maoli, Konohiki, Assistant Konohiki, and Friends
Amelia Gora · Works at Self-EmployedTexas was taken over, occupied by the same sugar planters from the Hawaiian Islands who occupied Mexican Territory, then had the U.S. Calvary help to protect their asses/er assets....that was a good Freudian slip...lol.......anywayz if you view the characters involved, you'll see that even today many of the Texans have their roots, relatives residing in the Hawaiian Islands....for example, the Cutter family in the Hawaiian Islands and their relative who moved over from Texas named Linda Lingle who became Governor....and recently she's back in the news http://bipartisanpolicy.org/person/linda-lingle/....red flags because the 'One World order activists seems to be spanning from the Hawaiian Islands, Texas, and Illinois with the Booth families........fyi....the Booth's are Obama's families by the way...... they are also Confederate General Robert E. Lee's bloodlines who was one of the heirs of George Washington's whose wife was a stock holder in the Bank of England........Obama is from a pirate, pillaging banker family being part of ( faggot )Charles Reed Bishop's sister who was a namesake of Bernice Pauahi Bishop., Charles Reed Bishop who was married to Bernice Pauahi Bishop was a banker, whose lover was William Lee, an American Consulate worker, attorney, judge.... anywayz see http://maoliworld.ning.com/forum/topics/exposing-obama-charles-reed... The Booth family appears to be tied to the One World Order, etc. due to the descendants being part of the auto sales (including Cutter - cousin of Linda Lingle); food chain - Foodland; airline industry, and the Bank of Hawaii....the bankers....their ancestor Booth was a "nigger hating" Englishman documented....his widow married into the Long's family (could it be the Long's Drugs chain? - research incomplete)... he had a son John Booth who went missing around the time U.S. President Lincoln was shot/assassinated..... also the Bush family also has its roots in the Hawaiian Islands....they have cousins here....and appears Candoleeza Rice too...the Rice family on the outer islands, etc..... observing that the various players, the pirates, pillages of the Hawaiian Islands and the world are the same people who have their wealth off of our Hawaiian monies, the Middle East areas due to the oil ---- car companies---airlines connections.... oh, interestingly the Court of Claims that Queen Liliuokalani entered in over the Crown Lands.which was claimed Ceded by the treasonous persons...Booth declared that the Ceded lands belonged to the office and not Queen Liliuokalani, etc.....(do you see more of the criminal wrongs? the wrongs by criminal deviants with roots from the same families?).....had Fenton Booth as the newly appointed Judge of the period...he was from Illinois....the same area where Obama attended school....the same think tank that houses the One World Order/New World Order activists.... hope everyone also smells something stink too....http://maoliworld.ning.com/forum/topics/exposing-obama-thru-genealo... also see what the greed is all about in the following film by Kili Kekumano and watch a LepreCON Pirate named (former Governor and Congressman) Neal Abercrombie explain it well in his greedy little low life way.... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fjELyim8q80 oh by the way Kamehameha's families/the Royal Families exists.... the heirs are here fyi.....and the entity State of Hawaii who claim to be successors of the Kingdom of Hawaii are Not related to us! Empower yourselves with knowledge folks and watch all the greedy players who are not even kanaka maoli! ;)
aloha.Reference:- http://maoliworld.com/forum/topics/judge-scalia-a-disinformer-or-uninformed-or-one-world-activist
- othe references:13) 1897-
President Cleveland Gave Hawaii Back to Queen Liliuokalanihttps://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B6Gs4av5Se1wN2JkZjMxMzEtMDIyNi00YW…14) 1897 – Annexation Opposition by Queen Liliuokalani found by researcher Kiliwehi Kekumano: https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B6Gs4av5Se1wOGJmZjg4MmQtNWRjMS00NT…Annexation Opposition (page 2) https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B6Gs4av5Se1wNWVlMTc0MjEtZWZiZS00Y2…Annexation Opposition (page 3) https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B6Gs4av5Se1wY2RjYzZmNjQtMjUxYi00Zm…Annexation Opposition (page 4) https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B6Gs4av5Se1wNmY2Mzk3ZTctZDEyMy00Yz…15) The Hawaiian Disgrace http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=F70A1FF7345D11738…16) Shameful Conspiracy https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B6Gs4av5Se1wN2Y2YjAwOTItOTEwMC00Mz…Told ya, we're surrounded by PIRATES, PILLAGERS, Criminal Devians, Racketeers, American MAFIA......... reference on Mafia, etc.: http://theiolani.blogspot.com/2012/04/legalnotice.html http://theiolani.blogspot.com/2012/05/iolanipart1.htmlhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QrY9eHkXTa4 Redemption Song
- Permalink Reply by on
- More References: http://maoliworld.ning.com/forum/topics/hawaiian-kanaka-maoli-homel... theiolani.blogspot.com http://myweb.ecomplanet.com/GORA8037https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nNh-D1wb0bw Drunken Sailor - Rapalje
- **************************
- facebook post:
- U,S. President Cleveland Gave Hawaii Back Twice,,, Agard Testimony, Williamson Chang Testimony, and some of my postings.........fyi .,important keeper for preparation for legal arguments, etc......gear up, copy, zap to family, friends.......
REVIEW OF - PRESIDENTIAL PROBLEMS BY GROVER CLEVELANDReview by Amelia Gora (2019)
U.S. President Cleveland Gave Hawaii Back to Queen Liliuokalani Twice (2x). See:
http://iolani-theroyalhawk.blogspot.com/2019/03/president-cleveland-gave-hawaii-back-to.html
The following is his perspective found in his book called PRESIDENTIAL PROBLEMS BY GROVER CLEVELAND:
"The Congress may enact laws; but they are inert and vain without executive impulse. The Federal courts adjudicate upon the rights of the citizen when their aid is invoked. But under the constitutional mandate that the President “shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed,” every citizen, in the day or in the night, at home or abroad, is constantly within the protection and restraint of the Executive power—none so lowly as to be beneath its scrupulous care, and none so great and powerful as to be beyond its restraining force."
SUMMARY
The Executive power, the President "shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed," and therefore even Congress are "inert and vain" and has no authority to interfere with the executives decision because "every citizen...at home or abroad...are within the protection and restraint" of the President.
Therefore, on the matter of giving Queen Liliuokalani back, Congress did not have authority in the matter.
Research incomplete.
aloha.Reference:
U.S. President Cleveland Gave Hawaii Twice (2x) to Queen Liliuokalani - see google for article researched by Amelia Gora (2018)
The Project Gutenberg EBook of Presidential Problems, by Grover Cleveland This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you'll have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this ebook. Title: Presidential Problems Author: Grover Cleveland Release Date: November 27, 2017 [EBook #56060] Language: English Character set encoding: UTF-8 *** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK PRESIDENTIAL PROBLEMS *** Produced by Wayne Hammond and The Online Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from images generously made available by The Internet Archive)iiiiii
PRESIDENTIAL PROBLEMS
BY
GROVER CLEVELAND
NEW YORK
THE CENTURY CO.
1904
iv
Copyright, 1904, by The Century Co.
Copyright, 1900, 1901, by
Grover Cleveland
Copyright, 1904, by
The S. S. McClure Co.
Copyright, 1904, by
The Curtis Publishing Company
Published October, 1904
The De Vinne Press
v
Copyright, 1900, 1901, by
Grover Cleveland
Copyright, 1904, by
The S. S. McClure Co.
Copyright, 1904, by
The Curtis Publishing Company
Published October, 1904
The De Vinne Press
v
PUBLISHER’S NOTE
Of the four essays comprised in this volume, two were originally delivered as addresses at Princeton University. The other two appeared first in the magazines.All have now been revised thoroughly by Mr. Cleveland, in preparation for their appearance in book form. vivii
| CHAPTER | PAGE | |
| I | The Independence of the Executive | 3 |
| II | The Government in the Chicago Strike of 1894 | 79 |
| III | The Bond Issues | 121 |
| IV | The Venezuelan Boundary Controversy | 173 |
ix
PREFACE
In considering the propriety of publishing this book, the fact has not been overlooked that the push and activity of our people’s life lead them more often to the anticipation of new happenings than to a review of events which have already become a part of the nation’s history. This condition is so naturally the result of an immense development of American enterprise that it should not occasion astonishment, and perhaps should not be greatly deprecated, so long as a mad rush for wealth and individual advantage does not stifle our good citizenship nor weaken the patriotic sentiment which values the integrity of our Government and the success of its mission immeasurably above all other worldly possessions.The belief that, notwithstanding the overweening desire among our people for personal xand selfish rewards of effort, there still exists, underneath it all, a sedate and unimpaired interest in the things that illustrate the design, the traditions, and the power of our Government, has induced me to present in this volume the details of certain incidents of national administration concerning which I have the knowledge of a prominent participant.
These incidents brought as separate topics to the foreground of agitation and discussion the relations between the Chief Executive and the Senate in making appointments to office, the vindication and enforcement of the Monroe Doctrine, the protection of the soundness and integrity of our finances and currency, and the right of the general Government to overcome all obstructions to the exercise of its functions in every part of our national domain.
Those of our people whose interest in the general features of the incidents referred to was actively aroused at the time of their occurrence will perhaps find the following pages of some value for reference or as a means of more complete information. xi
I shall do no more in advocacy of the merits of this book than to say that as a narrative of facts it has been prepared with great care, and that I believe it to be complete and accurate in every essential detail.
THE INDEPENDENCE OF THE EXECUTIVE
I
In dealing with “The Independence of the Executive,” I shall refer first of all to the conditions in which the Presidency of the United States had its origin, and shall afterward relate an incident within my own experience involving the preservation and vindication of an independent function of this high office.When our original thirteen States, actuated by “a decent respect for the opinions of mankind,” presented to the world the causes which impelled them to separate from the mother country and to cast off all allegiance to the Crown of England, they gave prominence to the declaration that “the history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny 4over these States.” This was followed by an indictment containing not less than eighteen counts or accusations, all leveled at the King and the King alone. These were closed or clenched by this asseveration: “A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.” In this arraignment the English Parliament was barely mentioned, and then only as “others,” with whom the King had conspired by “giving his assent to their act of pretended legislation,” and thus giving operative force to some of the outrages which had been put upon the colonies.
It is thus apparent that in the indictment presented by the thirteen colonies they charged the King, who in this connection may properly be considered as the Chief Executive of Great Britain, with the crimes and offenses which were their justification for the following solemn and impressive decree:
We, therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the World for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name and by the authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare that these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent 5States; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved; and that as free and independent States they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and do all other acts and things which independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.To this irrevocable predicament had the thirteen States or colonies been brought by their resistance to the oppressive exercise of executive power.
In these circumstances it should not surprise us to find that when, on the footing of the Declaration of Independence, the first scheme of government was adopted for the revolted States, it contained no provision for an executive officer to whom should be intrusted administrative power and duty. Those who had suffered and rebelled on account of the tyranny of an English King were evidently chary of subjecting themselves to the chance of a repetition of their woes through an abuse of the power that might necessarily devolve upon an American President. 6
Thus, under the Articles of Confederation, “The United States of America,” without an executive head as we understand the term, came to the light; and in its charter of existence it was declared that “the articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual.”
Let us not harbor too low an opinion of the Confederation. Under its guidance and direction the war of the Revolution was fought to a successful result, and the people of the States which were parties to it became in fact free and independent. But the Articles of Confederation lacked the power to enforce the decree they contained of inviolable observance by every State; and the union, which under their sanction was to be permanent and lasting, early developed symptoms of inevitable decay.
It thus happened that within ten years after the date of the Articles of Confederation their deficiencies had become so manifest that representatives of the people were again assembled in convention to consider the situation and to devise a plan of government that would form “a more perfect union” in place of the crumbling structure which had so lately been proclaimed as perpetual.
The pressing necessity for such action cannot 7be more forcibly portrayed than was done by Mr. Madison when, in a letter written a short time before the convention, he declared:
Our situation is becoming every day more and more critical. No money comes into the Federal treasury; no respect is paid to the Federal authority; and people of reflection unanimously agree that the existing Confederacy is tottering to its foundation. Many individuals of weight, particularly in the Eastern district, are suspected of leaning towards monarchy. Other individuals predict a partition of the States into two or more confederacies.It was at this time universally conceded that if success was to follow the experiment of popular government among the new States, the creation of an Executive branch invested with power and responsibility would be an absolutely essential factor. Madison, in referring to the prospective work of the convention, said:
A national executive will also be necessary. I have scarcely ventured to form my own opinion yet, either of the manner in which it ought to be constituted, or of the authorities with which it ought to be clothed.We know that every plan of government proposed or presented to the convention embodied in some form as a prominent feature 8the establishment of an effective Executive; and I think it can be safely said that no subject was submitted which proved more perplexing and troublesome. We ought not to consider this as unnatural. Many members of the convention, while obliged to confess that the fears and prejudices that refused executive power to the Confederacy had led to the most unfortunate results, were still confronted with a remnant of those fears and prejudices, and were not yet altogether free from the suspicion that the specter of monarchy might be concealed behind every suggestion of executive force. Others less timid were nevertheless tremendously embarrassed by a lack of definite and clear conviction as to the manner of creating the new office and fixing its limitations. Still another difficulty, which seems to have been all-pervading and chronic in the convention, and which obstinately fastened itself to the discussion of the subject, was the jealousy and suspicion existing between the large and small States. I am afraid, also, that an unwillingness to trust too much to the people had its influence in preventing an easy solution of the executive problem. The first proposal made in the convention that the President should be elected by the people was accompanied by an apologetic 9statement by the member making the suggestion that he was almost unwilling to declare the mode of selection he preferred, “being apprehensive that it might appear chimerical.” Another favored the idea of popular election, but thought it “impracticable”; another was not clear that the people ought to act directly even in the choice of electors, being, as alleged, “too little informed of personal characters in large districts, and liable to deception”; and again, it was declared that “it would be as unnatural to refer the choice of a proper character for Chief Magistrate to the people as it would to refer a trial of colors to a blind man.”
A plan was first adopted by the convention which provided for the selection of the President by the Congress, or, as it was then called, by the National Legislature. Various other plans were proposed, but only to be summarily rejected in favor of that which the convention had apparently irrevocably decided upon. There were, however, among the members, some who, notwithstanding the action taken, lost no opportunity to advocate, with energy and sound reasons, the substitution of a mode of electing the President more in keeping with the character of the office and the genius of a popular government. This fortunate persistence 10resulted in the reopening of the subject and its reference, very late in the sessions of the convention, to a committee who reported in favor of a procedure for the choice of the Executive substantially identical with that now in force; and this was adopted by the convention almost unanimously.
This imperfect review of the incidents that led up to the establishment of the office of President, and its rescue from dangers which surrounded its beginning, if not otherwise useful, ought certainly to suggest congratulatory and grateful reflections. The proposition that the selection of a President should rest entirely with the Congress, which came so near adoption, must, I think, appear to us as something absolutely startling; and we may well be surprised that it was ever favorably considered by the convention.
In the scheme of our national Government the Presidency is preëminently the people’s office. Of course, all offices created by the Constitution, and all governmental agencies existing under its sanction, must be recognized, in a sense, as the offices and agencies of the people—considered either as an aggregation constituting the national body politic, or some of its divisions. When, however, I now speak of the 11Presidency as being preëminently the people’s office, I mean that it is especially the office related to the people as individuals, in no general, local, or other combination, but standing on the firm footing of manhood and American citizenship. The Congress may enact laws; but they are inert and vain without executive impulse. The Federal courts adjudicate upon the rights of the citizen when their aid is invoked. But under the constitutional mandate that the President “shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed,” every citizen, in the day or in the night, at home or abroad, is constantly within the protection and restraint of the Executive power—none so lowly as to be beneath its scrupulous care, and none so great and powerful as to be beyond its restraining force.
In view of this constant touch and the relationship thus existing between the citizen and the Executive, it would seem that these considerations alone supplied sufficient reason why his selection should rest upon the direct and independent expression of the people’s choice. This reason is reinforced by the fact that inasmuch as Senators are elected by the State legislatures, Representatives in Congress by the votes of districts or States, and judges are appointed by the President, it is only in the selection 12of the President that the body of the American people can by any possibility act together and directly in the equipment of their national Government. Without at least this much of participation in that equipment, we could hardly expect that a ruinous discontent and revolt could be long suppressed among a people who had been promised a popular and representative government.
I do not mean to be understood as conceding that the selection of a President through electors chosen by the people of the several States, according to our present plan, perfectly meets the case as I have stated it. On the contrary, it has always seemed to me that this plan is weakened by an unfortunate infirmity. Though the people in each State are permitted to vote directly for electors, who shall give voice to the popular preference of the State in the choice of President, the voters throughout the nation may be so distributed, and the majorities given for electors in the different States may be such, that a minority of all the voters in the land can determine, and in some cases actually have determined, who the President should be. I believe a way should be devised to prevent such a result.
It seems almost ungracious, however, to find 13fault with our present method of electing a President when we recall the alternative from which we escaped, through the final action of the convention which framed the Constitution.
It is nevertheless a curious fact that the plan at first adopted, vesting in Congress the presidential election, was utterly inconsistent with the opinion of those most prominent in the convention, as well as of all thoughtful and patriotic Americans who watched for a happy result from its deliberations, that the corner-stone of the new Government should be a distinct division of powers and functions among the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches, with the independence of each amply secured. Whatever may have been the real reasons for giving the choice of the President to Congress, I am sure those which were announced in the convention do not satisfy us in this day and generation that such an arrangement would have secured either the separateness or independence of the Executive department. I am glad to believe this to be so palpable as to make it unnecessary for me to suggest other objections, which might subject me to the suspicion of questioning the wisdom or invariably safe motives of Congress in this relation. It is much more agreeable to acknowledge gratefully that a 14danger was avoided, and a method finally adopted for the selection of the Executive head of the Government which was undoubtedly the best within the reach of the convention.
The Constitution formed by this convention has been justly extolled by informed and liberty-loving men throughout the world. The statesman who, above all his contemporaries of the past century, was best able to pass judgment on its merits formulated an unchallenged verdict when he declared that “the American Constitution is the most wonderful work ever struck off at a given time by the brain and purpose of man.”
We dwell with becoming pride upon the intellectual greatness of the men who composed the convention which created this Constitution. They were indeed great; but the happy result of their labor would not have been saved to us and to humanity if to intellectual greatness there had not been added patriotism, patience, and, last but by no means least, forbearing tact. To these traits are we especially indebted for the creation of an Executive department, limited against every possible danger of usurpation or tyranny, but, at the same time, strong and independent within its limitations.
The Constitution declares: “The executive 15power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America,” and this is followed by a recital of the specific and distinctly declared duties with which he is charged, and the powers with which he is invested. The members of the convention were not willing, however, that the executive power which they had vested in the President should be cramped and embarrassed by any implication that a specific statement of certain granted powers and duties excluded all other executive functions; nor were they apparently willing that the claim of such exclusion should have countenance in the strict meaning which might be given to the words “executive power.” Therefore we find that the Constitution supplements a recital of the specific powers and duties of the President with this impressive and conclusive additional requirement: “He shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” This I conceive to be equivalent to a grant of all the power necessary to the performance of his duty in the faithful execution of the laws.
The form of Constitution first proposed to the convention provided that the President elect, before entering upon the duties of his office, should take an oath, simply declaring: “I will faithfully execute the office of President of the 16United States.” To this brief and very general obligation there were added by the convention the following words: “and will to the best of my judgment and power preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.” Finally, the “Committee on Style,” appointed by the convention, apparently to arrange the order of the provisions agreed upon, and to suggest the language in which they would be best expressed, reported in favor of an oath in these terms: “I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States”; and this form was adopted by the convention without discussion, and continues to this day as the form of obligation which binds the conscience of every incumbent of our Chief Magistracy.
It is therefore apparent that as the Constitution, in addition to its specification of especial duties and powers devolving upon the President, provides that “he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed,” and as this was evidently intended as a general devolution of power and imposition of obligation in respect to any condition that might arise relating to the execution of the laws, so it is likewise apparent 17that the convention was not content to rest the sworn obligation of the President solely upon his covenant to “faithfully execute the office of President of the United States,” but added thereto the mandate that he should preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution, to the best of his judgment and power, or, as it was afterward expressed, to the best of his ability. Thus is our President solemnly required not only to exercise every power attached to his office, to the end that the laws may be faithfully executed, and not only to render obedience to the demands of the fundamental law and executive duty, but to exert all his official strength and authority for the preservation, protection, and defense of the Constitution.
I have thus far presented considerations which while they have to do with my topic are only preliminary to its more especial and distinct discussion. In furtherance of this discussion it now becomes necessary to quote from the Constitution the following clause found among its specification of presidential duty and authority:
And he shall nominate, and by and with the advice of the Senate shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme 18Court, and all other officers of the United States whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law.This clause was the subject of a prolonged and thorough debate in Congress which occurred in the year 1789 and during the first session of that body assembled under the new Constitution. 19
*********************
facebook:
https://iolani-theroyalhawk.blogspot.com/…/us-president-gav… Share to Family's, Friends...…..Important Keeper! This is Part 1 of 3 
Thank you for helping in getting the information out to the people.
aloha.
Amelia Gora, one of Kamehameha's descendants, writer, researcher, author, Whistleblower, publisher of the IOLANI - the Royal Hawk news on the web, etc.
*******************************
"I firmly believe,
remarked Connecticut's Senator Orville Platt in 1894, that when any territory outside the present territorial limits of the United States becomes necessary for our defense or essential for our commercial development, we ought to lose no time in acquiring it.
[1] Platt's importunities were largely superfluous. The United States would have lost no time anyway in acquiring what has come to be known as America's vital interests,
be it tin and tungsten in Indochina or oil in the Middle East. Capitalism, like a shark, must keep moving, and American capitalism has been very successful in moving across the face of the globe.
Thirteen years later, Woodrow Wilson, soon to become president, would utter the shark-keeper's credo. Since trade ignores national boundaries,
he said, and the manufacturer insists on having the world as a market, the flag of his nation must follow him, and the doors of the nations which are closed against him must be battered down. Concessions obtained by financiers must be safeguarded by ministers of state, even if the sovereignty of unwilling nations be outraged in the process. Colonies must be obtained or planted in order that no useful corner of the world may be overlooked or left unused.
[2]
Wilson, like most presidents, was a Marxist of sorts. Compare his remarks to this, from the Communist Manifesto: The need of a constantly expanding market for [their] products chases the [manufacturer] over the whole surface of the globe. [They] must nestle everywhere, settle everywhere, establish connections everywhere.
[3] The difference, of course, was that Wilson was a willing servant, and beneficiary of, the capitalist exploitation Marx and Engels deplored. But they were all pretty well agreed on the imperative that drove capitalists to batter down the doors of nations closed against them. And much of the battering, in the American case, was being done by the United States military."
Reference: http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/27c/598.html
From owner-imap@chumbly.math.missouri.edu Fri May 16 08:00:34 2003
Date: Thu, 15 May 2003 20:58:51 -0500 (CDT)
From: Gregory Elich
<gelich@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Even if the sovereignty of unwilling nations be outraged
Article: 158087
To: undisclosed-recipients:;
http://www3.sympatico.ca/sr.gowans/outraged.html
Even if the sovereignty of unwilling nations be outraged
By Stephen Gowans, What's Left, 14 May 2003
George W. Bush's September 20, 2002 National Security Strategy begins with a bold declaration: There is, it says, a single sustainable model for national success: freedom, democracy and free enterprise.
Declaring free enterprise to be a summum bonum is a rather odd way to set out on the task of putting forward a plan to safeguard the security of a nation, if nation
is taken to comprise the 300 million or so people who claim US citizenship. For whatever has free enterprise—or Bush's commitment, set out in the same document, to actively work to bring...free markets and free trade to every corner of the world
—to do with safeguarding the personal safety of ordinary Americans?
The answer, according to Bush, is that poor countries are hospitable hosts for terrorist networks. Poverty does not make people into terrorists,
he says, but poverty...can make weak states vulnerable to terrorist networks.
And since [f]ree trade and free markets have proven their ability to lift whole societies out of poverty,
solving the problem of terrorism means imposing the single sustainable model of free trade and free markets on countries whose poverty is the fertile soil in which terrorist networks are able to put down roots, or so the argument goes.
To say there are a few problems with Bush's formulation is to understate the obvious. For one, it's not clear how much more free trade and free enterprise a desperately poor country like Haiti can withstand, before the word desperation
becomes too mild a description of the straitened circumstances under which the island's residents subsist. And Central America has a long history of free trade and free markets (imposed by US gunboat diplomacy), and nothing to show for it, but misery, poverty and unrelenting strife. But American corporations, among them United Fruit, have profited handsomely from a model of free trade and free markets that--while not lifting Central Americans out of poverty--has certainly kept the profit margins of US firms with stakes in the region agreeably large.
As for there being a single, sustainable model based on free markets, Cuban-style socialism, a counter-model, has enjoyed sustained success in delivering startling social gains to Cubans, achievements that not only put pre-Castro, US-dominated Cuba to shame, but raise troubling questions about the US. How is it, for example, that a Third World country, whose per capita GDP is a fraction of that of the United States, can offer universal healthcare for free, while 40 million Americans have no health insurance and another 40 million are inadequately insured? How is it that a poor Caribbean country can lead the world in the number of doctors and teachers per capita, have the world's lowest teacher to pupil ratio, offer education through university for free, and top the hemisphere with the lowest child mortality rate, while access to education in the US is grossly unequal and in some parts of the country child mortality reaches Third World levels? Even more troubling for defenders of the there's nothing better than the American system
school of thought, is how Cuba has, under the most inauspicious of circumstances, managed to deliver benefits that, were they proposed for Americans, would be immediately dismissed as too expensive. The tiny country has been blockaded, menaced by economic warfare, and subject for more than 40 years to Washington's unrelenting efforts to smash a society that stands as a challenge to the claim that there's one sustainable model, and yet, in matters of social well-being, economic security and equality, it outperforms its vastly richer northern neighbor.
The Bush document is chock-a-block of references to visiting the virtues of this single model of free trade and free markets on other countries. We will promote...economic freedom beyond America's shores,
it promises, presumably, whether the intended recipients approve or not. But however much the Bush administration is smitten by free trade and free markets (code for markets open to US firms on terms agreeable to US investors), it might be asked why it is necessary to impose this model on others? Markets open to US firms have proved infinitely more beneficial to US firms than to the majority of the domestic populations involved, which is not to say there aren't comprador sections of foreign populations that have also profited, but on the whole, the pursuit of free markets and free trade has had nothing to do with lifting others out of poverty, and has had everything to do with expanding markets and preventing the US economy from slipping into permanent recession. There is little to recommend this model to foreign populations, or the majority of Americans, for that matter, whose interests, if they are served by the model at all, are served only incidentally.
In this, Bush's emphasis on opening markets abroad and imposing free trade (a moral principle, Bush calls it, though not one to be observed when it comes at the expense of American workers,
which is kind of like saying marital fidelity is a moral principle, though not one to be observed at the expense of giving up an opportunity to bang the office flirt in a night of gloriously unbridled sex), is simply a continuation of a long-standing US foreign policy reaching back over a century, if not longer. It is a foreign policy that puts US corporate control over foreign markets, labor and resources at its center, supported by robust military intervention as a major means of achieving the central goal.
I firmly believe,
remarked Connecticut's Senator Orville Platt in 1894, that when any territory outside the present territorial limits of the United States becomes necessary for our defense or essential for our commercial development, we ought to lose no time in acquiring it.
[1] Platt's importunities were largely superfluous. The United States would have lost no time anyway in acquiring what has come to be known as America's vital interests,
be it tin and tungsten in Indochina or oil in the Middle East. Capitalism, like a shark, must keep moving, and American capitalism has been very successful in moving across the face of the globe.
Thirteen years later, Woodrow Wilson, soon to become president, would utter the shark-keeper's credo. Since trade ignores national boundaries,
he said, and the manufacturer insists on having the world as a market, the flag of his nation must follow him, and the doors of the nations which are closed against him must be battered down. Concessions obtained by financiers must be safeguarded by ministers of state, even if the sovereignty of unwilling nations be outraged in the process. Colonies must be obtained or planted in order that no useful corner of the world may be overlooked or left unused.
[2]
Wilson, like most presidents, was a Marxist of sorts. Compare his remarks to this, from the Communist Manifesto: The need of a constantly expanding market for [their] products chases the [manufacturer] over the whole surface of the globe. [They] must nestle everywhere, settle everywhere, establish connections everywhere.
[3] The difference, of course, was that Wilson was a willing servant, and beneficiary of, the capitalist exploitation Marx and Engels deplored. But they were all pretty well agreed on the imperative that drove capitalists to batter down the doors of nations closed against them. And much of the battering, in the American case, was being done by the United States military.
Major General Smedley Butler, a 33-year veteran of the US Marine Corps., would have perceived nothing unusual in George Bush's seeking to protect the security of a nation by committing to bring...free markets and free trade to every corner of the world.
That's because Butler came to perceive his role in the country' military establishment, which nominally exists to protect the security of Americans from attack, as one of securing access to foreign markets and resources on behalf of US firms, a necessary part of the imperative that drove capitalists to nestle everywhere, settle everywhere, establish connections everywhere,
even if it meant outraging the sovereignty of unwilling nations. It was perfectly true that the US military protected Americans, if by Americans you meant some Americans
and you were speaking of their business opportunities and investments overseas.
I spent most of my time [in the Marines] as a high-class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers,
[4] Butler recalled. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.
[5]
I helped make Mexico...safe for American oil interests,
he explained. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank.
And he added that he helped in the raping of half a dozen central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street.
[6]
Call it rape, or call it enforcing stability and security. It's all the same. Clinton's Defense Secretary William Cohen preferred the higher-sounding stability.
Business follows the flag,
he explained, when asked why 100,000 US troops were stationed in Europe, 40,000 were in South Korea, and tens of thousands were in the Persian Gulf region. Where there is stability and security, there is likely to be investment.
[7]
But then Cohen was simply echoing Ronald Reagan's Secretary of State, and former Supreme Commander of NATO's forces in Europe, Alexander Haig. A lot of people forget [the presence of US troops in Europe] is also the bona fide of our economic success,
Haig explained. [I]t keeps European markets open to us. If those troops weren't there, those markets would probably be more difficult to access.
[8]
And Haig was simply echoing another former General, Dwight Eisenhower. A serious and explicit purpose of our foreign policy [is] the encouragement of a hospitable climate for [private] investment in foreign nations.
[9]
But encouraging hospitable climates for US investment in foreign nations, often using the kind of Mafia-style arm-twisting techniques of the high-class muscle men of the US military, lacks the moral allure that brings people to their feet in wild frenzies of patriotic fervor, of the kind that might lead the Jay Garners of a nation to ejaculate, We ought to look in a mirror and get proud and stick out our chests and suck in our bellies and say: 'Damn, we're Americans!'
And so it is that the process of US firms nestling everywhere, settling everywhere, and establishing connections everywhere, even where it has meant outraging the sovereignty of unwilling nations, has been cloaked in do-gooder morality. This has been true of all conquests. We didn't come for the gold, or the riches, or the oil, we came to spread Christianity, to bestow civilization on savages, to bring democracy and human rights to those who have suffered under tyranny, to root out terrorism, to bring relief from poverty, and to stop ethnic cleansing. We didn't station 100,000 troops in Europe to protect the access of US firms to European markets. We stationed 100,000 US troops in Europe to protect Western Europeans from Soviet aggression. And when the Warsaw Pact disbanded, 100,000 US troops remained, and a new cloak, just as high-faulting as the last, was donned.
Oil,
the infamous Henry Kissinger once remarked, is much too important a commodity to be left in the hands of the Arabs.
[10] And so the sovereignty of Iraq has been outraged. There will be more nations whose sovereignty is outraged, so that US firms can nestle everywhere, settle everywhere, and establish lucrative connections everywhere. And there will be more fairy tales about liberating others from tyranny and rooting out terrorism and chasing away despots and dictators to make the world a freer and safer place. And it will continue unless the imperative that impels firms to scramble across the globe, seeking new markets, new resources, and new opportunties--using high-class muscle men to batter down the closed door s of unwilling nations--is overturned. Presidents like Bush come and go, all as much driven by coercive forces external to them, as the next. The faces change, but the policy--evidenced by the continuities among Wilson, Eisenhower and Bush, with ramifications leading to Haig and Cohen and Platt--remain the same. Always that single imperative remains at the center: expand, grow, nestle everywhere, settle everywhere, the sovereignty of unwilling nations be damned. Their resources are too important to be left in their hands.
Change the faces, without changing the imperative that shapes the policy, and nothing changes, but the surface appearance. The sovereignty of Cuba may be outraged, and Syria, and Iran, and soon, this century will shape up to be like every other century—one of war. And why? Because we believed the lies crafted by people whose job it is to manage impressions, lies that say that the United States, with hundreds of thousands of troops stationed in scores of countries across the globe is not an expansionist empire; lies that say that America's serial aggressions are motivated by humanitarian concerns, not by an economic imperative that impels Washington to batter down doors closed to capital accumulation; lies that say that voting for Democrats, or for good and decent people, can make a difference, without first transforming the external coercive forces that push the country in the same direction, no matter who is at the helm.
Two new articles by writers worth reading:
Gregory Elich's Can you spot the war crime?
.
David McGowan's funny Dave goes Polynesian
. Not for the humorless.
Notes
1. David Healy, U.S. Expansionism: The Imperialist Urge in the 1890's, Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin, 1970, p. 173, cited in Joel Andreas, Addicted to War, AK Press, 2002.
2. Micheal Parenti, Against Empire, City Light Books, San Francisco, 1995, p.40.
3. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, The Communist Manifesto,
in Leo Panitch and Colin Leys, Eds., The Socialist Register, 1998,
Monthly Review Press, 1998, p. 243.
4. Major General Smedley Butler, War is a Racket,
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html#c1
5. Ibid.
6. Ibid.
7. Cohen: No 'Superpower Fatigue' Secretary Says U.S. Military Presence Promotes Stability,
Military.com, May 24, 2000, cited in Joel Andreas, Addicted to War, AK Press, 2002.
8. UPI, January 7, 2002.
9. New York Times, February 3, 1953, cited in Michael Parenti, The Terrorism Trap, City Light Books, San Francisco 2002, p.88.
10. Hans von Sponeck and Denis Halliday, The Hostage Nation,
The Guardian, Nov. 29, 2001, cited in . Joel Andreas, Addicted to War, AK Press, 2002.
References:
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/hawaii-land-westernization_n_5afc9c72e4b0a59b4e003a35
https://amelia-gora.blogspot.com/2018/01/remembering-criminal-dethronement-of.html
No comments:
Post a Comment