MAUNA KEA – Construction of the Thirty Meter Telescope continues to be postponed as project managers try to find a way forward. For weeks, the opposing Ku Kia’i Mauna movement has maintained a vigil on Mauna Kea, blocking TMT crews from reaching the summit area where the $1.4 billion observatory is set to be built. Tensions remain high as everyone involved considers the end game.
Those on both sides of the issue are now engaging in some dialogue, and yet compromise does not appear to be on the horizon. A Thirty Meter Telescope representative recently said during an international radio interview that “it is absolutely certain the project will go ahead.”
Speaking to Richard Ewart for the ABC Radio Australia story Thirty Meter Telescope company says project will not be scrapped despite standstill, TMT’s Hawaii Community Affairs Manager Sandra Dawson said its a minority, not a large group in opposition to the project. “They’ve done a very good job of social media”, Dawson agreed.
Dawson was also asked if there will come a point where TMT will run out of patience?
We are being as patient as we can. If it comes to the fact that we go up and start construction while they’re still protesting, we would be sad to see that. But if thats what it has to be, then… as I’ve been hearing from many, many people on Hawaii Island they say ‘you just got to get started. You’ve got to move forward.’
We’ve already started our million dollars a year for education. We already started our workforce pipeline program. And we’ve already started our million dollars a year lease rent… People are looking for jobs, our union workers want to get back to work. They say ‘would you just get started, we want to work.’
So, at some point: yes, patience will run out and we’ll start. Sandra Dawson, Hawaii Community Affairs Manager for TMT
Dawson will be speaking in the second of four “Common Ground” events organized by the Hilo-Hamakua Community Development Corporation, starting in Laupahoehoe this coming Tuesday.
Kaho’okahi Kanuha, one of the primary spokespersons for the effort to stop the project, said they have been speaking directly with TMT board chairman Henry Yang.
We’re not there to make any sort of compromise or any negotiations at all, but just to reinforce the thought that there is only one outcome that will satisfy us and that would comply with the law. And that’s to totally cease and desist from this project.Kaho’okahi Kanuha
Kanuha said Yang told him that TMT is not considering another site, and that its Mauna Kea or nothing.
“So I guess the end game is nothing,” Kanuha said.
Big Island Video News will have a extended report featuring our recent interview with Kanuha on Monday.
Just arrest them all already!
“The only option is to stop it and win, and I fully believe that, that we will achieve that.” -Kaho’okahi Kanuha
I personally think the best option is to start work on the TMT and if anyone does anything illegal arrest them and keep them in jail so they aren’t able to interfere any more. Continuing to allow the superstitious beliefs of one small group to obstruct legal activities is absurd. People have a right of free speech to “protest”, and they have the attendant right to experience the legal consequences of that speech. The only option is to arrest and incarcerate lawbreakers, and I fully believe that, that we will achieve that.
Perhaps he was talking about the Law of Occupation in which the occupying power is supposed to be administering the laws of the nation being occupied–just as the US did in Iraq.
That would work…if the monarchy wasnt over thrown by naturalized citizens and it’s own subjects.
More sovereignty fringe nonsense.
Even if you come to the conclusion that the overthrow was legit and that there were no Executive Agreements between Pres. Cleveland and the Queen, you still have the problem of where a congressional act got the power to annex a sovereign nation.
…if the tractors are already on the summit….remove the “protesters”…secure the summit….fly crew in by heli….and do the contracted work….
The problem with your stance is that there is also a legal argument as to who actually owns the land. Now I understand you probably don’t feel its a valid argument, I’m just bringing it up because its an argument that isn’t religion Or “superstition” based.
If that argument is based on Kingdom sovereignty, that won’t hold up in court, since the courts are a division of the United States and the US holds that it is the owner of the land. The anti-TMT group has hit a soft spot in people’s minds over cultural sensitivity; by bringing in sovereignty, they are overreaching and will lose any public support they have built up so far.
That one is actually easy – the Provisional Government (later the Republic of Hawaii after the constitutional convention of 1894) requested annexation. They almost had a deal with the Harrison administration, Cleaveland opposed, and so once McKinley took over, Newlands passed overwhelmingly. Taking over a territory by Congress from a willing partner happened many times – Louisiana Purchase, Gasden, Alaska, etc.
I like how the lady talk about counting her eggs before they hatch. No shame hah. So the whole bs about how this will help the community is circles too then. cuz people want to get back to work, yeah like she care. She could have just said she had her hand in the cookie jar 7 years ago and cut this whole dam story in half. What next richard ha Goin explain how the UH funded his banana/pakalolo farm too. Yeah education for the kids so they can graduate from weed to ice and start making real money. Yeah that’s funny cookie jar crew.
As Eric points out the “sovereign” Nation, The Republic of Hawaii, made up of mostly Polynesians, and whose Speaker of the House was a Polynesian, unanimously voted to request annexation by the United States, after Liliuokalani abdicated her thrown and swore allegiance to the Republic of Hawaii. http://historymystery.grassrootinstitute.org/2008/04/04/liliuokalanis-abdication-and-loyalty-oath/
The United States then, by way of a Congressional-Executive Agreement (one of two ways that a treaty can be accepted in the U.S.), passed the treaty by 209-91 vote in the House (way over two-thirds) and 42-21 (exactly two-thirds) in the Senate, and was then signed by the President McKinley.
So, no matter how you look at it the treaty passed the Senate per “treaty method” by 2/3rds majority vote. However, Congressional-Executive agreements have been used many times to ratify treaties. Bill Clinton used this method to ratify his NAFTA Treaty during his administration.
There is a ratified treaty involved with all the examples you listed. There is none in the case of Hawaii.
It was not a Congressional-Executive Agreement. It was a joint-resolution between the House and the Senate. Not the same thing.
Kaimana, a “joint resolution” is how a “Congressional-Executive Agreement” is executed.
It is now widely accepted that a Congressional-Executive agreement is a complete alternative to a treaty method of just being OK’d by the Senate: the president can seek approval of any agreement by joint resolution of both Houses of Congress instead of by a two-thirds vote of the Senate alone. Like a treaty, such an agreement is the law of the land, superseding inconsistent state laws as well as inconsistent provisions in earlier treaties, other international agreements, or acts of Congress.
However, you can call it a treaty method if you want as it surprisingly received a two-thirds ratification in the Senate after all.
Where is the Executive agreement that the joint-resolution approves? The joint resolution of annexation did not approve any executive agreement made by the President with the Republic of Hawai`i, whether before or after, but rather bodied the text of the failed treaty itself in statute form and used by the President as if it was a ratification of the treaty.
That’s all mumbo jumbo Kaimana. You apparently now agree that it is completely legal in the U.S. to adopt a treaty by “joint resolution”, but want me to now show that it was initiated by the President. That is easy simply go to his “State of the Union” address Dec. 6th 1897.
“By a special message dated the 16th day of June last, I laid before the Senate a treaty signed that day by the plenipotentiaries of the United States and of the Republic of Hawaii, having for its purpose the incorporation of the Hawaiian Islands as an integral part of the United States and under its sovereignty. The Senate having removed the injunction of secrecy, although the treaty is still pending before that body, the subject may be properly referred to in this Message because the necessary action of the Congress is required to determine by legislation many details of the eventual union should the fact of annexation be accomplished, as I believe it should be.”
So there you have it a public acknowledgement the President shows he not only had been in talks, but sent a formal request to the Congress requesting action on the treaty offer from the Republic of Hawaii.
A CEA doesn’t require a prior executive agreement – it is a bill, signed by the president. Many times the text of the bill is, in fact, a negotiated agreement, but in strict form, is simply a bill passed by Congress and submitted to the President for signature. Even if the executive branch has negotiated an agreement, such as NAFTA, it is submitted to both houses as a bill, voted upon, differences ironed out between the versions, and submitted.
An excerpt from a Berkeley law faculty scholarly review:
“Known as congressional-executive agreements, these instruments are indistinguishable under international law from
treaties in their ability to bind the United States to international obligations.
Several recent agreements of significance, such as the North
American Free Trade Agreement (“NAFTA”) and the World Trade Organization (“WTO”) agreement, have undergone this statutory process. Not surprisingly, presidents have favored this easier route to making international agreements. While in the first fifty years of American history, the nation concluded twice as many treaties as nontreaty agreements, since World War II the nation has concluded more than ninety percent of its international agreements through a nontreaty
mechanism.”
In the case of Newlands, the treaty text was, as you point out, embodied in a bill, approved by Congress, and signed by the President. This is exactly how all CEA’s happen.
John C. Yoo, Laws as Treaties: The Constitutionality of Congressional-Executive Agreements, 99 Mich. L. Rev. 757 (2000),
Available at: http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/facpubs/1765
I never said that the US can adopt a treaty with a joint-resolution, there is a big difference between a CEA and a treaty or there would be no such thing as a treaty.
It’s really simple, how does the US Constitution(and the actual treaty itself) require treaties to be ratified?
Is a joint-resolution on there?
So do we have a ratified treaty of annexation?
All of that deals with it’s legality within the US. For it to have international power it must come from the executive branch since they are the only ones with power in foreign affairs. And that’s if you even think a CEA has the power to annex a sovereign nation. All the examples you’ve given have nothing to do with the US enforcing laws abroad or annexing land. They’re all agreements saying the US will uphold its end of the bargain not giving the US power abroad.
If CEA’s were equivalent to Treaties then why do we even still have Treaties?
All correct Eric, you see, the sovereignty fringers have been propagandized by evil doers amongst themselves that easily sway the uninformed into their web of lies and deceit, like the felon David Sai does.
They speak of “executive agreements” yet conveniently don’t mention that Liliuokalani abdicated her thrown and swore allegiance to the Republic of Hawaii, negating any “agreements” that they claim were made but have never been produced, and so are nothing but speculation anyway.
Then the likes of Sai claim falsely to the gullible that there “was no treaty” when they know well that it is called an Congressional-Executive Agreement that has all the same weight as a treaty, but is called something different in order to differentiate it’s form of approval process from only the 2/3rds Senate form of approval.
Sovereingty fringers should be very angry at the felon Sai and Company for intentionally misleading the folks.
Since the Republic asked to be annexed, the CEA was our agreement that the Territory would be created and administered by the USA. By August the transfer was complete.
Since the CEA is a bill passed by Congress and signed by the president, it doesn’t originate formally by the executive branch (and both the legislative and executive branches have roles in foreign affairs). Executive comes into play by signing the bill.
We still have treaties because they are specifically written into the Constitution! Jefferson himself was a supporter of CEA’s as early as 1791, very shortly after the ratification of the Constitution and formation of the second United States. But as I mentioned in an earlier post, CEA’s are the vast majority of international accords over the last century.
Yes we do have a treaty of Annexation, Kaimana. You have been lied to without doing due diligence to find if you have been told the truth. CEAs and Treaty methods are only words, vernacular terminology if you please, used in the U.S. to differentiate between the two methods. If the President for instance has the majority of the Senate, he might just send it there for approval. If he thinks the vote might be close in the Senate he can have either a Senator introduce it as a CEA, or it can be introduced in the House, as it was by Congressman Newlands. The result is a TREATY.
Poor Kaimana just cannot grasp the concept.
LOL, I just realized that was before the Treaty failed. SMH. Again all we have is a failed treaty and a joint resolution. Not a ratified treaty or a CEA.
Now who’s the deceiver?
Yes Eric, CEA’s are now the desired method of treaty approval by many of the great law minds of our time, as this method brings many more people into the discussion, debate, and approval process.
It was never “failed” as it was never voted on by treaty method in the Senate. But, I can see that you do understand, but like your buddy David Sai, just go around and around in circles. Accept that you have been lied to and go on with your life, Kaimana.
So are you saying there is a ratified treaty of annexation?
Yeah I have been lied to, by the US.
Show me one CEA used in place of a treaty that was initiated and negotiated by congress.
In your case the intials U.S. mean “Ultra-delusional Sovereigntists”.
As can be seen from the discussion below of the legal details regarding “annexation”, etc., the legal arguments that the United States has no, or extremely limited, legal authority (such as court-authorized ownership of land) may not be superstition, but it is closely aligned in that it is another form of delusion.
The Republic asked be annexed and offered a treaty. The treaty had specific guidelines on how it should be ratified. The US did not comply with the guidelines, therefore the joint resolution is only a joint-resolution and not a CEA.
That’s if you believe it was presented as a CEA, which there is no proof that it was. It was always presented as a congressional act.
The treaty offer passed the Senate by a 2/3rds majority vote. So your point is moot, Kaimana. However, know one at the time complained or challenged it. In fact they welcomed it.
John
Kaulukou was the Speaker of the House when the Republic of Hawaii unanimously
asked to become a part of the U.S.. As
Kaulukou told the San Francisco Chronicle on July 28, 1898, “I regard
Annexation as the best thing that could happen for Hawaii, both native and
foreign population. I have advocated it ever since it became an issue in
political politics and I rejoice heartily that it has come. For years I have
looked upon it as being, if not inevitable, at least as the only way in which
the best interests of Hawaii could be protected and advanced”
I find it always interesting that people like you are so arrogant as to tell the folks that were involved at the time, in this case mostly Polynesian office holders in the Republic of Hawaii, what they should have wanted to do, when all their words and actions show differently.
A resolution of ratification passed the Senate or a Joint-Resolution? Those are two entirely different things. Didn’t you yourself just write that the treaty never voted on by treaty method?
Approval = Approval. Stop telling your elders what they should have done or wanted. They asked to become part of America. They didn’t challenge it, and you are somehow smarter than they were?! Shame!
How does the US constitution say a treaty must be ratified?
What was the stipulation of article 7 in the treaty presented to the US?
Uncle you took your pills yesterday? You make us worried when you talk like that remember what your doctor said take it easy uncle. I hope you no was talking about me when you say delusional sovereignty. In 2015 you want us to pack up and go where? Back to tahiti? You must have skipped your script yesterday and I hope your doctor reading this before your issues turn in to tissues.
42-21 in the Senate baby! The numbers speak for themselves. End of subject.
What da hell
SMH. Joint-resolution. No power outside of the US.
Just a spinning top. Round and around and back where you started, nowhere again.
Yet another well informed commenter, Live Aloha.
The problem is that your argument is the US can do it like that because it did. That’s not really an argument. We keep coming back to the same point because you have not shown any evidence that it was a CEA or that a congress through a joint-resolution has any power outside of the US.
Congress passes laws and treaties all the time that have to do with things outside the U.S.A. Don’t be silly.
Name some. The constitution does not give congress any power in foreign affairs, only the executive branch.
http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3472&context=fss_papers
You just going to post links and not reference anything in the links?
I know you don’t like reading anything but your sovereignty fringe handbook, but try reading the paper. Then you won’t need to ask elementary questions.
Yet another insightful comment from “Live Aloha”.
None of that has anything to do with Congress having power in acting as a representative in international negotiations.
Also from this- See Part I, Section IV. The actual vote in the Senate on the joint resolution with respect to Hawaii was 42-21, but counting pairs and those not voting, a recent scholar has concluded that the “actual division of the Senate . . . was substantially less than the two-to-one vote required to give consent to a treaty.”
Care to explain this?
No doubt, another graduate of Pigeon University, “Live Aloha”.
A recent “scholar”? LOL! Well who ever he or she is is simply speculating. Were they there?
A vote is a vote, no matter how the chips fall, as they say in Vegas. No vote means no say. Passed 42-21, two thirds, read them and weep!
But, you have come a long way, Kaimana. You at least realize that no matter how you look at it, it is a done deal. Then and now.
That came out of the link you posted lol.
If you read the paper it is IN favor of Congressional-Executive agreements used for treaties, and foreign monetary affairs.
Ok so you’re using an opinion piece in favor of CEA’s being used for treaties as an example of cases where congress had direct power in foreign affairs?
That’s why there no debating you. Anytime you get stuck you just change the subject or post a link to something that you yourself hasn’t even read and then you offer it as proof.
Stick to the issue at hand. Show me an example of an international CEA that was executed with the powers of congress.
You were the one that said, “that a congress through a joint-resolution has’nt any power outside of the US.”
The paper speaks to how it does, how it has happened before, and how it is really the most democratic method.
The joint-resolution isn’t what gives it power internationally. It creates a municipal law allowing the President to exert his power abroad in regards to the agreements already established by both heads of state.
One more time, how is a Congressional-Executive Agreement executed? By joint-resolution. But, also once again it received a 2/3rds vote in the Senate. All legal, all done. So, this whole discussion is meaningless.
Again what is the joint-resolution doing? It’s giving consent to the Executive branch to go through with what ever agreements it’s already established. The joint-resolution by itself has no power, but an executive agreement does in some circumstances.
Since there was no executive agreement, the joint-resolution stands alone.
Our Mo’i Wahine, Liliuokalani was “FORCED BY MILITARY WITH THEIR BAYONET” POINTED TO HER HEAD…she had no other choice only because they ordered her to give up her throne & was placed in her own Prison. She turned to her People not to fight back for she did not want to see any more Blood shed from her own People. Military was standing at the bottom of the Palace Stairs with their Bayonets poiting at the people. Also, our Mo’i Wahine, didn’t want anyone to die, so she went peacefully. Now, how do you or how would you react to that….Our Mo’i Wahine never gave up her Throne, it was taken from her, illigally.
That Roseline that account is a complete falsehood. Liliuokalani willfully signed her abdication after her dismal attempt at a counter revolution in 1895 where many men were killed. Less than 200 men could be found to take part out of a population of 120,000 here at the time and at least 40,000 Polynesians here at the time. You need to read the real history for yourself. She was found to have guns buried in her back yard and papers implicating her in her house. She was sentenced to house arrest in the Palace, not such a bad place considering was was allowed to have two maids in waiting. She was released 7 months later, and allowed to return to her home “Washington Place”. At the time of her death she was flying an American flag outside her home. Link: http://historymystery.grassrootinstitute.org/2008/04/04/liliuokalanis-abdication-and-loyalty-oath/
Force and violence are the only things U.S. corp. knows how to do. What’s new?
“legal” to steal people’s lands?? Consequences of free speech?? Is this true ignorance or the product of govt. paid shills? One of the same, really. Pathetic.
Jurisdiction is the real issue. The U.S. has none….zero….zilch.
Why don’t YOU go arrest them slick diverdave? Why hide behind hired guns and fire off your mouth?
You’re all missing the point here. U.S. Inc. is a foreign, for profit corporation, much like Walmart and Honda. They have NO jurisdiction anywhere, except within their own organization. Get your heads out of the sand and stop enslaving yourselves and your neighbors for paycheck. Go plant organic foods and feed your neighbors.
Sorry, all moot, Eric…all done under fraud.
http://www.fromthetrenchesworldreport.com/rod-class-gets-fourth-administrative-ruling-govt-offices-are-vacant-all-govt-officials-are-private-contractors/23602
“Rod Class has now received FOUR Administrative Rulings
that prove what many of us have felt to be truth: What you think is
government; what you think are legitimate Government
Officials/Senators/Congressman/Policeman/Governors/Tax Collectors, etc.
are nothing more than private contractors, extorting
money from American Citizens and failing to pay off the public debt as
they are instructed to do by the 1933 bankruptcy.”
Codes, statutes, regulations, etc… only apply to employees and slaves of the corporation called U.S. I don’t work for U.S. Inc.; thus, none of it applies to me. They have NO jurisdiction over anyone but their own slaves, of which I’m not.
Who are the ‘great minds of our time’? You, paid govt. shill, diverdave? LOL
The U.S. acted in fraud; thus, all is null and void…you’re moot, dd. Why was there an apology bill from slick willy clinton? Why apologize but not return stolen property? Not pono.
Stop changing history by repeating the lie. The elders did not want to give up sovereignty. Only the brainwashed would trade liberty for security. For some, repeating the lies long enough and it becomes truth. That’s called sheeple. The rest of us aren’t buying it. Move along dd.
Who, what exactly is the ‘senate’ and what power do they have over people who are NOT part of their organization called U.S. Inc?
“These people have switched places with the average American Citizen.
They are enforcing their own Administrative codes, that are only meant
for THEM, upon regular Citizens who are not being paid by the
corporation. The supposed elected officials have hoodwinked the country
into an employment position without pay. They themselves are taking
public money to occupy government seats/positions/agencies, when they
are nothing more than private contractors … Felony!
They are treating us as if we are paid government employees;
enforcing their own internal rules-regulations-codes, and statutes on
the average Citizen, as well as conveniently forgetting to send us our
weekly/monthly government employment check.
1. All BAR attorneys are prohibited from representing John Q. Public;
can only represent gov’t officials and employees within their own
agencies, their BAR Charter says so.
2. Any Judge that prohibits you from representing yourself or hiring a
defense other than a BAR attorney, are in fact, committing a felony on
the bench in violation of the Taft-Hartly Act (running a closed union
shop) and the Smith Act (overthrow of Constitutional form of Gov’t)
3. Anytime an BAR attorney represents someone in a case against you,
you can now claim that person is incompetent; a ward of the state, with
no standing to sue.
4. Any and all tax collectors, police officers, sheriffs dept’s, DOT,
tag agencies, BAR attorneys, Judges, Highway Patrol, supposed elected
officials, are nothing more than private contractors, who can now be
brought up on fraud charges for impersonating a public official while
receiving federal funding.
5. Any and all home, vehicle, credit card loans are supposed to be
discharged through the Treasury window, in compliance with the 1933
bankruptcy laws. These scumbags are double dipping and never discharging
the debt like they are supposed to. They are embezzling the funds and
pocketing them for themselves.
6. Every person sitting in prison today was railroading by a BAR
attorney who’s first allegiance is to the State; who had no lawful
authority to represent them; who worked in concert with the State to
perpetrate a fraud upon it’s victims.
7. Orders from Administrative courts prove for the fourth time, an agency of the State is NOT an agency under the State.
8. Elected Officials are claiming 11th Amendment sovereignty, when
it’s actually you and I that hold 11th Amendment sovereignty. They are
getting paid by the corporation, you and I are not.
9. They have admitted to the crime of no one actually holding a
public office; they are filling corporate seats and defrauding the
public.
10. Political subdivisions are not getting their 40% funding from the Feds as they are supposed to get.
11. These Judges have admitted (black ink on white paper) that all these State Offices are ……….. EMPTY!
12. Now we have Administrative paperwork – ruling these public offices aren’t part of the State agencies.
13. Attorney Generals may not practice law; can’t represent the people who are not public officials.
14. If the State is a 3rd party interloper in your Marriage (marriage
license); Vehicle Title (State Registration), etc. then they are liable
for 1/3rd of the cost to manage the daily activities of that contract.
15. If the State demands you have a Drivers License and Tag your
vehicle because it is registered with the State, then as the owner of
the vehicle, the State is required to pay for the vehicle, the tags,
licensing, fuel, tires, oil, etc. and they are also to pay you a salary
for driving a State owned vehicle; it says so in their own Highway
Safety Act and USC – CFR rules and regulations.
16. We now have the court orders that goes back and nullifies any and
all IRS and Tax cases, Foreclosures, Credit Card Debt, cases or
actions. These people never had the lawful right to demand anything of
you; they are corporate actors, not a legitimate government body.
17. Judge admits the 1933 bankruptcy, and no way to pay off anything
because of Federal Reserve Notes; all public debt is t be discharged
through the Treasury.
18. Only the Secretary of Transportation can hear traffic cases; all traffic cases are civil, not criminal.
19. If you’re not being paid for you time, you are not required to have one of their CDL or CMV licenses; it’s prohibited.
20. Says we now have a major labor dispute on our hands; US corporation running a slave racket against American Citizens without the pay.
21. United States Codes (USC) and Titles #1 thru #50 are void; have never been passed by Congress; all have been repealed.
If you are not getting a weekly or monthly paycheck from the so called federal government aka UNITED STATES or one of it’s sub corporations such as the STATE OF ***, then their statutory rules (not laws), codes and regulations DO NOT APPLY TO YOU ……… Period!
http://harveyw26.minus.com/
http://www.talkshoe.com/talkshoe/web/talkCast.jsp?masterId=48361&cmd=tc
Exactly!!! None of their codes, resolution, regulations, BS apply to anyone other than U.S. Inc. employees.
so stop spinning your wheels, dd. Telling the lie over and over will not make it truth. How much are you getting paid as a U.S. Inc shill? Is the FRN’s to wipe your rear end worth selling your soul?