Na Keokani Kipona Marciel, Loea Lula HoʻomaluIn the Lāhui today, we're familiar with terms like "international law" and "the rule of law," but what about "parliamentary law"? What Is Parliamentary Law and How is It Relevant to the Lāhui?Hawaiian patriotic societies and political parties were commonplace in the Lāhui during the Hawaiian Kingdom era. In fact, the proposed foreign—albeit illegal—annexation of the Hawaiian Islands was prevented from ever succeeding due to the efforts of the three largest Hawaiian patriotic societies at the close of the 19th century. These deliberative assemblies conducted their affairs according to the common parliamentary law. In other words: the generally accepted customs and best practices of voluntary organizations designed to ensure effective meetings and democratic decisions.
Parliamentary law is a branch of common law governing the conduct of deliberative assemblies. Democratic procedure, i.e., parliamentary law, is derived from the legislative assemblies of the national and local governments under whose jurisdiction an organization is located. Although the procedure of voluntary organizations was originally modeled after the procedure of their respective legislative bodies, over time the non-legislative procedure has been adapted to the needs of ordinary societies in general. This body of meeting procedures has become known as common parliamentary law, also known as general parliamentary law.
The common parliamentary law applies to all deliberative assemblies, including legislative bodies, in cases where their own adopted rules are silent. The operative word, "law," means that parliamentary law is not a switch that can be turned on or off. Hence, it is not an optional tool for deliberative assemblies. Instead, a deliberative assembly may only deviate from the common parliamentary law by adopting a procedural manual (parliamentary authority), standing rules of order, or long-standing customs, which supersede particular rules of common parliamentary law. However, an organization can only adopt its own standing rules of order or long-standing customs to the extent that they do not conflict with any applicable procedural rules prescribed by law or statutes in the jurisdiction where the organization is located. What Is a Deliberative Assembly?A deliberative assembly is a group of people sharing a common interest who have a meeting of the minds to democratically adopt decisions expressing their general will. Types of deliberative assemblies include:
The formation of a permanently organized deliberative assembly entails the adoption of governing documents, enrollment of members, election of officers, holding of regular meetings, and appointment of committees as needed. The meetings of a deliberative assembly entail adequate prior notice to all members, the presence of a quorum, an agreed-upon agenda that follows a prescribed order of business, a presiding officer to conduct the meetings, and a secretary to keep a legal record of the proceedings. If the organization collects membership dues or otherwise handles money, then a treasurer should be elected to maintain the funds of the organization, report the current balance at regular meetings, and provide an annual financial report to be audited by the organization. What is a Parliamentary Authority?Deliberative assemblies may adopt a published procedural manual, formally known as a parliamentary authority. Such a manual is a codification of common parliamentary law which contains standardized rules of order for meetings. The way that a procedural manual is adopted by a permanent organization is by including an article in its bylaws that references the manual. Additionally, an organization may adopt standing rules of order that supersede or supplement its adopted procedural manual. What Gave Rise to Parliamentary Procedure Throughout the World?
Democratic procedure for group decisions is rooted in antiquity. The House of Commons in the United Kingdom—considered the mother of all parliamentary democracies—has formally conducted its business in democratic meetings for over seven centuries. The Speaker of the House of Commons serves as the impartial referee of its proceedings. Likewise, the Hawaiian Kingdom had a Speaker for its House of Representatives. When Was Parliamentary Law Established in the Hawaiian Islands?In 1840, the Hawaiian Kingdom became a constitutional monarchy and parliamentary democracy. In 1854, each house of the Hawaiian Kingdom legislature adopted a procedural manual to govern the proceedings of their respective meetings. In turn, this established a basis for development of the common parliamentary law followed by ordinary societies and mass meetings in the Hawaiian Kingdom. To What Extent Did Our Ancestors Know Parliamentary Law?The Petition Against Annexation of 1897 defeated a proposed treaty in the United States Senate that would have illegally annexed the Hawaiian Islands if it had been adopted in 1898. Beloved by the Lāhui today, the significance of the monster petition—which we proudly refer to as the Kūʻē Petition--constitutes an unsurpassed historical feat. It was but one example of many petitions organized by Hawaiian patriotic societies in response to the insurgency that began in 1887, followed by the ongoing belligerent occupation that began in 1893.
During that time, our Aloha ʻĀina ancestors commonly organized themselves into deliberative assemblies. They did this by adopting governing documents, enrolling members, electing officers, holding meetings, authorizing boards, appointing committees, adopting resolutions, conducting mass meetings, participating in delegate conventions, and organizing petition efforts. The Hawaiian language newspapers of that era provide an historical record today that is full of examples demonstrating the commonality of, and familiarity with, parliamentary law in the Lāhui.
To What Extent Today Are We Familiar with Parliamentary Law?During the Hawaiian Kingdom era, the Lāhui had no shortage of patriotic societies and political parties. Can the same be said about the Lāhui today? Of all the Aloha ʻĀina groups that we are familiar with today, how many can you identify with having any of the following items characteristic of a deliberative assembly?
What Do the Governing Documents Include?The governing documents of an organization are sometimes referred to instead as the documents of authority, or the documentary authority. An organized permanent society may adopt any of the following documents of authority as needed:
Bylaws are the only governing document on the list that a voluntary permanent organization is required to adopt as a deliberative assembly. When drafting bylaws, it is advisable for an organization to consult with a credentialed parliamentarian for assistance. Additionally, if an organization chooses to incorporate, then a corporate charter would be required as prescribed by applicable statutes. When drafting articles of incorporation, it is advisable for an organization to consult with an attorney for assistance. Bylaws Are for Organizations and Constitutions Are for GovernmentsThe practice of an organization adopting a constitution—with or without bylaws to go with it—is long since obsolete. The main reason is for simplification, since there are no provisions of an organizational constitution that cannot function the same way in the bylaws. Therefore, it is the recommended practice to combine the two into a single instrument called the bylaws. Furthermore, bylaws are to an organization as a constitution is to a government. That is another good reason why the term, "constitution," has been dropped from the governing documents of contemporary ordinary societies. This removes any potential for someone getting confused about the context in which the term, "constitution," is being used. Which Procedural Manual is Best?As suggested above, it is a best practice for voluntary organizations to adopt a procedural manual through a provision in the bylaws. The procedural manual that I generally recommend for voluntary organizations is Modern Parliamentary Procedure (2nd ed., 2018) by Ray Keesey. It offers the most radical simplification of procedure of all the parliamentary authorities ever published. Hence, it is the most concise, user-friendly, and practical choice available for the average meeting. For the Lāhui, I also recommend Nā Lula Hālāwai: A Parliamentary Guide to Conducting Meetings in Hawaiian (2014), by William Puette and Keao NeSmith. 
Current Parliamentary AuthoritiesUnited Kingdom
United States
Older Parliamentary Authorities
Historic Parliamentary Authorities
Additional Parliamentary References
Parliamentary OrganizationsHawaiian Islands United States Hawaiian Patriotic Societies in the Lāhui: From Lost Art to Potential Renaissance
0 Comments
Na Keokani Kipona Marciel, Loea Lula Hoʻomalu
The Hawaiian patriotic societies of the 19th century succeeded in defeating annexation. The relative absence of such deliberative assemblies in the Lāhui today constitutes the status quo. Will the status quo be sufficient to deoccupy Ko Hawai‘i Pae ‘Āina? For a group to be a deliberative assembly, it must adhere to the generally accepted practices of democratic organizational procedure. In other words, parliamentary law. Democratic meeting procedures (rules of order) are the difference between a group and an organization; or between an affiliation of groups and an association of organizations. To be organized permanently as a deliberative assembly (i.e., a democratic organization), a group must adopt governing documents, enroll members, elect officers, hold regular meetings, authorize a board of directors, and appoint committees where necessary. Each meeting is conducted by a presiding officer following an agreed-upon order of business, with the secretary present to keep a legal record of the proceedings. Above all, the organization must expedite the orderly transaction of decisions during properly called meetings with a quorum present, while simultaneously protecting the rights of all members in the process. This provides for the general will of the membership to be expressed as official acts of the organization. Resolutions adopted by a deliberative assembly constitute mandates that can be used for diplomatic action. This is a higher form of synergy compared to testimony provided at a public hearing, or discussion held by a panel of guest speakers—hallmarks of the status quo in the contemporary Lāhui. Furthermore, the mandate (synergy) of a resolution can be amplified if adopted by a convention of delegates elected by the local chapters of an association. Deliberative assemblies may have become a lost art in our modern Lāhui, but therein lies the potential for a renaissance of the Hawaiian patriotic societies that our ancestors utilized to defeat annexation. What other way would it be possible for us to produce the sequel, which would be the deoccupation of Ko Hawai‘i Pae ‘Āina? If labor unions and political parties could succeed without adhering to parliamentary law, they wouldn't be organized as deliberative assemblies. Why should we as the Lāhui be any less organized than a labor union or a political party, in order to bring about the justice that we deserve?
Kānāwai Hoʻomalu: Is Parliamentary Law a Blind Spot in the Modern Lāhui?By Keokani Kipona Marciel, Professional Registered Parliamentarian (PRP)
Democratic Organizational Procedure in the 19th Century Hawaiian KingdomFrom the unification of the Hawaiian Islands at the turn of the 19th century until the illegal overthrow near the end of the 19th century, governance of the Hawaiian Kingdom was modeled largely after Great Britain. In 1840, the Hawaiian Kingdom became a constitutional monarchy with separation of powers into three branches of government, establishing itself as a conventional nation-state. In 1854, each of the two houses of the Hawaiian Kingdom legislature formally adopted procedural manuals to govern their proceedings. As in other democracies, legislative procedure formed the basis for the common parliamentary law of the Country. In other words, the generally accepted rules of order for meetings of voluntary organizations. These general principles of meeting procedures provide for democratic governance in ordinary societies. The historical record clearly shows that democratic organizational procedure was widely embraced by Hawaiian patriotic societies and political parties of the 19th century. For example, the men’s and women’s Hawaiian Patriotic League each adopted provisions in their founding constitutions prescribing parliamentary procedure for both volunteer associations.
Democratic Organizational Procedure in 21st Century Ko Hawaiʻi Pae ʻĀinaIn contrast to the Hawaiian Kingdom era, an aversion to parliamentary procedure has developed within the Hawaiian national body of the 21st century. Yet, the historical record speaks for itself: annexation was prevented by a mass petition organized by a joint effort of the three largest Hawaiian patriotic societies at the time. These three societies followed the common practices of formal procedure every step of the way. The magnitude of this historical feat remains unsurpassed.
A 21st Century Case StudyThe Experiment In 2015, an effort began to restore one of the major Hawaiian patriotic societies of the Hawaiian Kingdom era. Under the supervision of a credentialed parliamentarian, organizational meetings were held, bylaws were adopted, members were admitted, dues were collected, officers were elected, committees were appointed, regular meetings were established, branch charters were issued, and two annual delegate conventions were held. Also adopted were a code of ethics, strategic plan, standing rules (procedural and administrative), and numerous resolutions for diplomatic action. In effect, it was an experiment to see how well the Lāhui of today can tolerate the organizational procedure of its 19th century ancestors. Ultimately, the socialized aversion to formal procedure prevailed, clearing the way for authoritarianism and the railroading of decisions. In 2019, the board of directors of this society, in violation of parliamentary law, revolted against the rules and orders adopted by the association. The current bylaws of the association provide for their amendment only by the delegate assembly of the annual convention, following written notice to the entire association at least 60 days in advance. This was willfully disregarded by some of the board members, who covertly conspired to illegally amend the bylaws. Violation of the Rights of Absent Members A special meeting was abruptly called without giving notice of the proposed bylaw amendment. This violated the rights of absent members who have a right to know the purpose of a special meeting in advance. Previous notice allows all members to determine if the subject of the special meeting is important enough to make arrangements in their individual schedules to attend. Not only did the illegal bylaw amendment violate the bylaws, as well as the rights of absent board members, it also violated the rights of the delegates of the annual conventions who adopted the bylaws. Between conventions, delegates are members absent during board meetings, so their rights as absent members were violated. The Action is Null and Void Under Common Law When a motion was made to adopt the proposed bylaw amendment during the board meeting, the correct response by the chair would have been to rule the motion out of order because of the aforementioned conflict with the bylaws. Instead, the presiding officer stated the motion, which was to revise the purpose in the bylaws, replacing it with one privately drafted by the conspirators. After discussion, the presiding officer took a roll call vote and the bylaw amendment was adopted by those present. However, since the action is in conflict with the bylaws, it is null and void under parliamentary law, even if adopted unanimously by the assembly of board members. Parliamentary law (democratic meeting procedures established over time by organizations in general) is a branch of common law. Violation of the Right of the Majority to Rule Additionally, the bylaws are a codification of the most important rules of the association, adopted by a majority—and amended by a super-majority (two-thirds)—of the registered delegates present and voting at successive annual conventions. Therefore, to violate the bylaws is to violate the rights of the majority of delegates that adopted the bylaws, including the super-majority that amended the bylaws, at the annual conventions. In particular, the board illegally revised the purpose in the bylaws, which had already been amended by the delegate assembly at the 2017 and 2019 conventions. This violated the right of those majorities to rule, to have their decision stand as an official act of the association, which is binding upon the membership. The right of the majority to rule is a fundamental principle of parliamentary law, i.e., democratic organizational procedure. Violation of the Rights of Individual Members Furthermore, the illegal revision of the purpose in the bylaws, by the board of directors between annual conventions, violated the rights of the individual members who had given written notice, of proposed amendments to the purpose, to be considered at the upcoming annual convention. It violated their right to make motions. Specifically, to have their proposed bylaw amendments considered before those subsequently introduced by the board. In other words, the board cut to the front of the line, and those who had already been waiting in line were thrown under the bus. Board Decisions Cannot Conflict with Delegate Decisions Moreover, it is a fundamental principle of parliamentary law that the board cannot adopt decisions in conflict with decisions adopted by the regular convention of delegates. In this case, the board cannot adopt a revision of the purpose, in the bylaws, that was previously adopted and amended by convention delegates, because the bylaws do not delegate this power to the board. The ultimate authority of a volunteer organization resides in the membership, not in the board of directors elected by the membership. For an association of organizations, the voting membership consists of the registered delegates at successive conventions, who are elected by the entire membership consisting of the members of the chartered organizations collectively.
Can the Illegal Board Action be Ratified?ʻAʻole. The only actions that the board can legally take are those delegated to it by the membership through the bylaws. In this case, the bylaws do not delegate any power to the board to amend the association bylaws between annual conventions. Consequently, any amendment of the bylaws by the board between annual conventions is null and void under parliamentary law because it conflicts with the previous adoption and amendment of the bylaws by the superior body, which is the delegate assembly.
Furthermore, bylaws cannot be suspended under parliamentary law unless a clause provides for its own suspension, which is not the case here. Nor does the clause in question constitute a rule or order (which could be suspended if permitted by the adopted parliamentary authority, or by an adopted rule superseding it).
Moreover, an action taken by the board cannot be ratified by the membership if its governing documents do not authorize the delegation of such action to the board.
The only way for the illegal bylaw amendment to be made legal is to start over and follow the procedure prescribed in the bylaws. First, to provide previous written notice of the proposed bylaws amendments to the entire association at least 30 days before the next annual convention. Second, for the amendment to be adopted by two-thirds of the registered delegates assembled at the business meeting of the convention (with a quorum present). If it is desired for the board to have the delegated power to amend the bylaws between annual conventions of the branch delegates, then this would require an amendment to the bylaws at an annual convention. There have so far been two annual conventions of the association, at which this could have been proposed but never was. Alternatively, the bylaws could be amended to allow special conventions to be called for emergency purposes between the regular conventions. As an ongoing conflict with the bylaws, it is never too late for a point of order to be raised against the illegal bylaw amendment during a subsequent board meeting or annual convention. A ruling on the point of order by the presiding officer can be appealed to the assembly for a decision, which, in turn, could not be appealed. However, if unsuccessful, the point of order could be renewed at subsequent meetings due to the illegal bylaw amendment being an ongoing conflict with the bylaws.
ConclusionDual Purpose of Meeting Procedures Parliamentary practice is an application of democratic principles, hence, they are synonymous. Accordingly, the case study described in this article suggests that noncompliance with parliamentary law and procedure can result in less democratic meetings and decisions by an organization, including violation of the rights of members. Rules of order for meetings of an organization exist to expedite business (group decisions made in the name of the organization) while simultaneously protecting the rights of every part of the membership: majority, minority, individual members, absent members, and all of them as a whole. If people are unable to see these dual roles of meeting procedures, then they may not see the value of meeting procedures. Blinded by a Socialized Aversion to Democratic Organizational Procedure If people are already prejudiced against meeting procedures to begin with, then they are more likely to have a closed mind to meeting procedures, which, in turn, prevents them from seeing their dual function. Consequently, they may see meeting procedures as obstructive rather than conducive to effective meetings. Then, it can become a vicious cycle, with confirmation bias reinforcing the socialized perception at a group level. This inhibits their motivation to learn meeting procedures in the first place. The result is that democratic organizational procedure (parliamentary law) is never truly given a chance to demonstrate its effectiveness in expediting meetings and protecting member rights simultaneously.
Discussion
Parliamentary law and procedure took centuries to develop. It stands to reason that this process would not have been necessary if democratic meetings were naturally occurring in human social systems. Misalignment In general, the contemporary Lāhui embraces the historical legacy of 19th century Hawaiian patriotic societies, while simultaneously avoiding the common law of meeting procedures that they followed (i.e., general parliamentary law). Therefore, the desire to restore one of these historic societies today is misaligned with the prejudice against parliamentary procedure that is part of the social scripting of the current generation of poʻe aloha ʻāina (Hawaiian patriots). This misalignment decreases the likelihood that an historic Hawaiian patriotic society can be restored to its former level of acceptance without adhering to a similar standard of procedure which got it there. In turn, this lack of formal procedure may contribute to the longevity of the prolonged belligerent occupation of Ko Hawaiʻi Pae ʻĀina. The alternative is to accept that the procedure followed by the 19th century Hawaiian patriotic societies is "part of the package" if the desire is to fully restore one of them today. Transplanted Operating System Parliamentary law and procedure was the operating system used by the 19th century Hawaiian patriotic societies and political parties. Today, social media is the prevailing operating system used by the Lāhui. Therefore, it remains to be seen whether an historic Hawaiian patriotic society of the 19th century can be restored to its former presence by relying primarily on social media in lieu of meeting procedures, i.e., democratic organizational procedure. Social media has existed for two decades. Parliamentary procedure began developing more than seven centuries ago and is rooted in antiquity. Since written exchanges through electronic mail and social media do not allow for simultaneous communication between everyone participating in a discussion, such asynchronous communication does not qualify as a deliberative assembly. Therefore, without a deliberative character, such group exchange cannot arrive at decisions democratically, nor as efficiently. While modern communication technology facilitates the exchange of information, it can only host a meeting of the minds when it provides for face-to-face communication. In other words, a deliberative character can be achieved through live video-conferencing, but not by asynchronous dialogue conducted through e-mail, text messaging, and social media.
Is there a Plan B? Naturally, the goal of restoring an historic Hawaiian patriotic society is to formalize a significant portion of the Lāhui into an organized group (i.e., a grassroots decision-making body) through democratic procedure. However, as the case study in this article demonstrates, it only takes a few misaligned or unethical perpetrators to undermine the effort. This leads to the question of whether there is an alternative, or Plan B, if the formal organizational approach hits a wall? In my opinion, I now believe that the Hawaiʻi de-occupation movement can and should succeed with or without the formation of deliberative assemblies in the Lāhui that follow best practices for democratic organizational procedure. I see two alternatives for achieving this objective:
Logical Fallacies Returning to the topic of reviving Hawaiian patriotic societies, various logical fallacies are employed to discourage or oppose the use of parliamentary procedure in deliberative assemblies within the Lāhui today.
Manuals of Meeting Procedures Recommended for Lāhui Hawaiʻi
Ke Kānāwai Hoʻomalu Maʻamau (Nā Papa Hana Hālāwai) |
| —Ka Hui Hawaiʻi Aloha ʻĀina. (4 Malaki 1893). Kumukānāwai (Paukū 8, Helu 3). Honolulu, Oʻahu, Ko Hawaiʻi Pae ʻĀina |
All proceedings of meetings of the League and of the Executive Council shall be governed by the usual decorum and rules of Parliamentary Usage.
| —Hawaiian Patriotic League. (4 March 1893). Constitution (Article 8, Section 3). Honolulu, Oʻahu, Hawaiian Islands |
ʻO nā hālāwai a pau a ka Hui a me ke Kōmite Hoʻoponopono, e alakaʻi ʻia nō ia e nā rula o nā anaina maikaʻi a me nā rula maʻa mau o nā ʻAhaʻōlelo.
| —Ka Hui Hawaiʻi Aloha ʻĀina a Hoʻomau Kūʻokoʻa a nā Lede. (27 Malaki 1893). Kumukānāwai (Paukū 7, Helu 3). Honolulu, Oʻahu, Ko Hawaiʻi Pae ʻĀina |
All proceedings of meetings of the Association and of the Managing Committee shall be governed by the usual quorum and rules of similar associations.
| —Ladies Hawaiian Patriotic Association. (27 March 1893). Constitution (Article 7, Section 3). Honolulu, Oʻahu, Hawaiian Islands |
The "usual decorum and rules of Parliamentary Usage," and, "the usual quorum and rules of similar associations," as prescribed by the original Hui Aloha ʻĀina—Hawaiian Patriotic League—in its founding documents in 1893, was a reference to what is known today as common parliamentary law. This is a branch of common law that applies to meeting procedures of voluntary organizations. Rules of order enable a group to make more decisions in less time during meetings while also protecting the rights of the membership, including the majority, minority, individual members, absent members, and all of them together. Decorum during debate is a form of kapu aloha that helps us have vigorous discussion on controversial questions without burning bridges between members. These are democratic principles in action, well within the grasp of the average person open to learning them, empowering ordinary groups to take them into their own hands for pono governance.
A Parliamentary Guide to Conducting Meetings in Hawaiian
Belligerent occupation is the most common form of international armed conflict, abbreviated, "IAC." According to The Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights:
... an IAC includes any situation in which one state invades another and occupies it, even if there is no armed resistance at all. This is set down in Article 2 common to the four 1949 Geneva Conventions.
(War Report 2017, p. 20)
That is exactly what took place in the Hawaiian Islands beginning on January 16, 1893, and again on August 12, 1898.
The self-proclaimed "Republic of Hawaiʻi" (ROH) was an insurgent militia and puppet regime installed by the US on January 17, 1893, which US President Grover Cleveland correctly diagnosed as "neither de facto nor de jure." Hence, it was an armed force of the US by way of proxy. Therefore, it was neither a government nor a state. Consequently, it had no ability under customary international law to convey Hawaiian sovereignty and cede Hawaiian territory to the United States.
Even if ROH was a legitimate government, transfer of Hawaiian sovereignty to the USA would require bilateral approval by both the head of state and legislature in each country. However, neither legislature approved it. The US Senate failed to ratify the proposed annexation treaty in 1898, as required by the US Constitution and defined by customary practice: the territories of all 49 US states were acquired through bilateral treaties of cession negotiated by the US President and ratified by the US Senate.
There is no historical precedent where a law enacted by US Congress can be used in lieu of a Senate treaty to acquire the territory of a foreign country, especially after two failed attempts to ratify such an annexation treaty. The power of US Congress to admit states was used prematurely for Texas in 1845, but undisputed annexation of the territory did not occur until the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848.
Texas was being admitted as a state by US Congress in 1845. Hawaiʻi was not being admitted as a state by US Congress in 1898. Rather, it was purportedly being annexed as an unincorporated territory by unilateral declaration via a joint resolution, using the Spanish-American War as a pretext. Therefore, the premature statehood admission of Texas in 1845 is an invalid precedent for the alleged territorial annexation of Hawaiʻi in 1898.
There is abundant history of opposition to the insurgency in Hawaiʻi nei, both before and after the unlawful seizure of the Hawaiian Kingdom government on January 17, 1893. This includes petitions by Hawaiian Kingdom subjects, submitted during the respective reigns of both Kalākaua and Liliʻuokalani, to replace the unlawful "bayonet constitution." The Queen herself submitted a protest against the illegal overthrow, to the US.
The Hawaiian Patriotic League submitted a formal protest against annexation that became part of the Blount Report, which resulted in US President Grover Cleveland withdrawing the proposed annexation treaty of 1893, submitted by the puppet regime of insurgents to the US Senate.
There were the three armed revolts against the insurgency, led by Robert Kalanihiapo Wilcox, in 1888, 1889, and 1895.
There were the two mass signature petitions, submitted respectively by the two largest Hawaiian patriotic societies in 1897. One called for restoration of the monarchy, and the other successfully defeated annexation in 1898.
Consequently, with plenty of examples of protest against illegal takeover of the Hawaiian government, prescription cannot be claimed by the US as a mode for acquisition of the Hawaiian territory. This holds true even after the lapse of 6 decades between the false territorial annexation in 1898 and the pretense of statehood admission in 1959. Both were laws enacted by US Congress, i.e., domestic statutes incapable of acquiring a foreign country.
After 61 years of transferring portions of its military and civilian populations into the occupied territory, an implicit claim could not be made to the Hawaiian territory by the congressional act of statehood admission in 1959. As a domestic statute, it had no ability to annex the Hawaiian territory, nor did it even claim to. Instead, it stated the false premise that the Hawaiian Islands were acquired by the congressional joint resolution of 1898.
Nor could the 1959 statehood admission ballot be considered a valid plebiscite under international law, since it excluded any independence options.
Nor did the 1959 statehood vote carry the weight of a mandate with only 35% of the "eligible" voting population, as defined by the U.S. puppet government, which included US nationals transferred into the occupied territory—a war crime under international humanitarian law—during the prior 61 years.
The turnout for the 1959 statehood vote was 45% of "eligible" voters as defined by the US puppet government. When Americans claim that 97% voted for statehood, this is out of the 45% turnout, which actually equals 35% of the occupier-defined voting population. While the turnout percentage may be overlooked in a domestic election, it cannot be overlooked in an international plebiscite, or one that pretends to be. A turnout of less than 50% is not considered a mandate under customary international practice for sovereignty transfer (territorial acquisition). In any case, the vote did not change the fact that the statehood admission was an act of US Congress, like the joint resolution of 1898, neither of which could reach across US borders--and nearly 2,500 miles of ocean--to acquire the Hawaiian Islands.
In summary, no matter how the legal history of Hawaiian sovereignty is analyzed, there is insufficient evidence to support a claim to Hawaiian sovereignty by the United States, and ample evidence against any such claim.
In conclusion, the question of correctly diagnosing the current legal status of Hawaiʻi belongs to the living descendants of Hawaiian Kingdom subjects alive prior to January 17, 1898. The question cannot be decided for this national body—the Lāhui Hawaiʻi Aloha ʻĀina—by any other country or its nationals. It cannot be decided by an organization outside of the Lāhui.
There are no persons or organizations in the world today more qualified to diagnose the history and legal status of Hawaiʻi nei than its true nationals, the descendants of those alive prior to January 17, 1893. Especially, those of us who embrace Hawaiian nationality, the continued existence of which is presumed in the absence of a bilateral treaty of cession, between the Hawaiian Kingdom and the United States, necessary to overcome that presumption.
That is exactly what took place in the Hawaiian Islands beginning on January 16, 1893, and again on August 12, 1898.
The self-proclaimed "Republic of Hawaiʻi" (ROH) was an insurgent militia and puppet regime installed by the US on January 17, 1893, which US President Grover Cleveland correctly diagnosed as "neither de facto nor de jure." Hence, it was an armed force of the US by way of proxy. Therefore, it was neither a government nor a state. Consequently, it had no ability under customary international law to convey Hawaiian sovereignty and cede Hawaiian territory to the United States.
Even if ROH was a legitimate government, transfer of Hawaiian sovereignty to the USA would require bilateral approval by both the head of state and legislature in each country. However, neither legislature approved it. The US Senate failed to ratify the proposed annexation treaty in 1898, as required by the US Constitution and defined by customary practice: the territories of all 49 US states were acquired through bilateral treaties of cession negotiated by the US President and ratified by the US Senate.
There is no historical precedent where a law enacted by US Congress can be used in lieu of a Senate treaty to acquire the territory of a foreign country, especially after two failed attempts to ratify such an annexation treaty. The power of US Congress to admit states was used prematurely for Texas in 1845, but undisputed annexation of the territory did not occur until the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848.
Texas was being admitted as a state by US Congress in 1845. Hawaiʻi was not being admitted as a state by US Congress in 1898. Rather, it was purportedly being annexed as an unincorporated territory by unilateral declaration via a joint resolution, using the Spanish-American War as a pretext. Therefore, the premature statehood admission of Texas in 1845 is an invalid precedent for the alleged territorial annexation of Hawaiʻi in 1898.
There is abundant history of opposition to the insurgency in Hawaiʻi nei, both before and after the unlawful seizure of the Hawaiian Kingdom government on January 17, 1893. This includes petitions by Hawaiian Kingdom subjects, submitted during the respective reigns of both Kalākaua and Liliʻuokalani, to replace the unlawful "bayonet constitution." The Queen herself submitted a protest against the illegal overthrow, to the US.
The Hawaiian Patriotic League submitted a formal protest against annexation that became part of the Blount Report, which resulted in US President Grover Cleveland withdrawing the proposed annexation treaty of 1893, submitted by the puppet regime of insurgents to the US Senate.
There were the three armed revolts against the insurgency, led by Robert Kalanihiapo Wilcox, in 1888, 1889, and 1895.
There were the two mass signature petitions, submitted respectively by the two largest Hawaiian patriotic societies in 1897. One called for restoration of the monarchy, and the other successfully defeated annexation in 1898.
Consequently, with plenty of examples of protest against illegal takeover of the Hawaiian government, prescription cannot be claimed by the US as a mode for acquisition of the Hawaiian territory. This holds true even after the lapse of 6 decades between the false territorial annexation in 1898 and the pretense of statehood admission in 1959. Both were laws enacted by US Congress, i.e., domestic statutes incapable of acquiring a foreign country.
After 61 years of transferring portions of its military and civilian populations into the occupied territory, an implicit claim could not be made to the Hawaiian territory by the congressional act of statehood admission in 1959. As a domestic statute, it had no ability to annex the Hawaiian territory, nor did it even claim to. Instead, it stated the false premise that the Hawaiian Islands were acquired by the congressional joint resolution of 1898.
Nor could the 1959 statehood admission ballot be considered a valid plebiscite under international law, since it excluded any independence options.
Nor did the 1959 statehood vote carry the weight of a mandate with only 35% of the "eligible" voting population, as defined by the U.S. puppet government, which included US nationals transferred into the occupied territory—a war crime under international humanitarian law—during the prior 61 years.
The turnout for the 1959 statehood vote was 45% of "eligible" voters as defined by the US puppet government. When Americans claim that 97% voted for statehood, this is out of the 45% turnout, which actually equals 35% of the occupier-defined voting population. While the turnout percentage may be overlooked in a domestic election, it cannot be overlooked in an international plebiscite, or one that pretends to be. A turnout of less than 50% is not considered a mandate under customary international practice for sovereignty transfer (territorial acquisition). In any case, the vote did not change the fact that the statehood admission was an act of US Congress, like the joint resolution of 1898, neither of which could reach across US borders--and nearly 2,500 miles of ocean--to acquire the Hawaiian Islands.
In summary, no matter how the legal history of Hawaiian sovereignty is analyzed, there is insufficient evidence to support a claim to Hawaiian sovereignty by the United States, and ample evidence against any such claim.
In conclusion, the question of correctly diagnosing the current legal status of Hawaiʻi belongs to the living descendants of Hawaiian Kingdom subjects alive prior to January 17, 1898. The question cannot be decided for this national body—the Lāhui Hawaiʻi Aloha ʻĀina—by any other country or its nationals. It cannot be decided by an organization outside of the Lāhui.
There are no persons or organizations in the world today more qualified to diagnose the history and legal status of Hawaiʻi nei than its true nationals, the descendants of those alive prior to January 17, 1893. Especially, those of us who embrace Hawaiian nationality, the continued existence of which is presumed in the absence of a bilateral treaty of cession, between the Hawaiian Kingdom and the United States, necessary to overcome that presumption.
The occupant does not acquire sovereignty over the territory.
| |
Ua Mau ke Ea o ka ʻĀina i ka Pono
By Keokani Kipona Marciel, MS
Founder, Hui Aloha ʻĀina o Las Vegas
People in the Hawaiian movement today are increasingly identifying themselves as “patriots.” The term for “patriot” in the Hawaiian language is aloha ʻāina. The popularity of this term traces back to Ka Hui Hawaiʻi Aloha ʻĀina (Hawaiian Patriotic League), founded by one of the most storied patriots in Hawaiian history, Joseph Nāwahī, less than two months after the U.S.-backed overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom government in 1893.
Within two months of its debut, Hui Aloha ʻĀina (shortened version of its full name) had 37 District Branches on 5 islands, and a Central Body in Honolulu with at least 31 elected officers. In 1897, with a membership of about 18,500, Hui Aloha ʻĀina amassed more than 21,000 signatures on a petition opposed to annexation of the Hawaiian Islands by the United States. Upon the arrival of this “Kūʻē Petition” in Washington D.C., on December 6th, 1897, 58 out of the 90 U.S. Senators were in favor of ratifying the annexation treaty, introduced by the puppet regime of insurgents that usurped the Hawaiian Kingdom government.
By February 27th, 1898, the number of U.S. Senators in support of the annexation treaty had dropped to 46, which was short of the 60 votes needed for a two-thirds supermajority, as required by the U.S. Constitution to ratify a treaty. Knowing that they did not have enough votes, the U.S. Senate did not even take a vote on the proposed annexation treaty. It is because of this heroic effort of Hui Aloha ʻĀina that the United States, to this day, does not have an annexation treaty to substantiate its claim to Hawaiian sovereignty.
Consistent with the notorious suppression of Hawaiian culture and history by foreigners, it wasn’t until 1996 that the anti-annexation petition of 1897 surfaced in the U.S. National Archives. Since then, Hui Aloha ʻĀina and the Kūʻē Petitions have become household names beloved by our Lāhui, contributing to a resurgence of Hawaiian national identity being experienced today.
Recent years have also seen the emergence of Hawaiian history that has been locked away in Hawaiian language newspapers. Rediscovered on June 23rd, 2014, the Constitution of the Hawaiian Patriotic League was printed in both Hawaiian and English, in Leo o ka Lāhui, on March 22nd, 1893. Hidden from us for 121 years, this historical document is barely beginning to filter its way through our Lāhui today. The 1893 constitution of Hui Aloha ʻĀina is so relevant to Hawaiian patriots today, that many of us would like to be organized under that constitution again. Its second article reads:
Within two months of its debut, Hui Aloha ʻĀina (shortened version of its full name) had 37 District Branches on 5 islands, and a Central Body in Honolulu with at least 31 elected officers. In 1897, with a membership of about 18,500, Hui Aloha ʻĀina amassed more than 21,000 signatures on a petition opposed to annexation of the Hawaiian Islands by the United States. Upon the arrival of this “Kūʻē Petition” in Washington D.C., on December 6th, 1897, 58 out of the 90 U.S. Senators were in favor of ratifying the annexation treaty, introduced by the puppet regime of insurgents that usurped the Hawaiian Kingdom government.
By February 27th, 1898, the number of U.S. Senators in support of the annexation treaty had dropped to 46, which was short of the 60 votes needed for a two-thirds supermajority, as required by the U.S. Constitution to ratify a treaty. Knowing that they did not have enough votes, the U.S. Senate did not even take a vote on the proposed annexation treaty. It is because of this heroic effort of Hui Aloha ʻĀina that the United States, to this day, does not have an annexation treaty to substantiate its claim to Hawaiian sovereignty.
Consistent with the notorious suppression of Hawaiian culture and history by foreigners, it wasn’t until 1996 that the anti-annexation petition of 1897 surfaced in the U.S. National Archives. Since then, Hui Aloha ʻĀina and the Kūʻē Petitions have become household names beloved by our Lāhui, contributing to a resurgence of Hawaiian national identity being experienced today.
Recent years have also seen the emergence of Hawaiian history that has been locked away in Hawaiian language newspapers. Rediscovered on June 23rd, 2014, the Constitution of the Hawaiian Patriotic League was printed in both Hawaiian and English, in Leo o ka Lāhui, on March 22nd, 1893. Hidden from us for 121 years, this historical document is barely beginning to filter its way through our Lāhui today. The 1893 constitution of Hui Aloha ʻĀina is so relevant to Hawaiian patriots today, that many of us would like to be organized under that constitution again. Its second article reads:
The object of this Association is to preserve and maintain, by all legal and peaceful means and measures, the Independent Autonomy of the Islands of Hawaii nei; and, if the preservation of our Independence be rendered impossible, our object shall then be to exert all peaceful and legal efforts to secure for the Hawaiian People and Citizens the continuance of their Civil Rights. |
This epiphany has catalyzed the formation of Hui Aloha ʻĀina o Las Vegas—Hawaiian Patriotic League of Las Vegas. The first organizational meeting of this local hui was held on January 9th, 2016, and a committee has been formed to draft its bylaws. Announced simultaneously to the Lāhui on social media, Hawaiian patriots back home are already inspired by this aloha ʻāina initiative from Las Vegas:
The pieces are all here. Let's put this Hui back together and get off this sinking pirate ship. —William Chang, Hāna, Maui |
Let's not reinvent the wheel people...I would jump on this. I wanna know who organized this Hui? Anybody wanna take the lead in Kapolei? Nanakuli? Kealoha Kahunaʻāina Iona —Shannon Denning, Mākaha, Oʻahu |
Love of country is the essence of patriotism. Hawaiians have just as much right to love of country as any other people in the world. Indentification as a Hawaiian patriot is a postive expression of love toward the country of the Hawaiian Islands. Rediscovering this identity allows Hawaiian people to dissociate from inaccurate labels such as “activist,” “nationalist,” “protester,” or “sovereignty group,” which have plagued our Lāhui for decades.
The term aloha ʻāina, or “Hawaiian patriot,” is preferrable to the term “Hawaiian national,” because the latter implies someone who is seeking nationhood. Ever since the Hawaiian Kingdom formally entered the Family of Nations on November 28th, 1843, the continuity of its sovereignty and independence as a State has been presumed under international law.
In 1993, the United States formally acknowledged that it does not have a claim to Hawaiian sovereignty by way of treaty, plebiscite, or referendum. In fact, the only official claim that the United States has ever made to Hawaiian sovereignty is by its joint resolution of 1898, known as the “Newlands Resolution.” In 1988, however, the U.S. Department of State, through its Office of Legal Counsel, failed to verify the constitutionality of annexation by joint resolution.
Hui Aloha ʻĀina is a feat of grassroots organization that is unsurpassed in Hawaiian history. This association was disbanded in 1900, when it merged with Hui Kalaiʻāina to become Kūʻokoa Home Rula (Independent Home Rule Party). However, its legacy is so beloved, and its constitution so compelling, that there is growing interest in reviving this important institution today.
If our Lāhui today had the grassroots infrastucture that Hui Aloha ʻĀina provided us from 1893 to 1900, we could have already had an ʻaha by now, free from co-optation and judicial interference by the occupier. Consider that we sent a petition with more than 21,000 signatures to Washington D.C. in 1897, which defeated the annexation treaty. The petition succeeded without being initiated by an American law (Act 195), without funding from OHA (Office of Hawaiian Affairs), without a “Native Hawaiian” roll commission (Kanaʻiolowalu) appointed by an American governor (Neil Abercrombie), without a committee (Naʻi Aupuni) appointed by OHA, without outsourcing to an American company (Elections-America), and without rulemaking by the DOI (U.S. Department of Interior).
We can return to our grassroots today.
The term aloha ʻāina, or “Hawaiian patriot,” is preferrable to the term “Hawaiian national,” because the latter implies someone who is seeking nationhood. Ever since the Hawaiian Kingdom formally entered the Family of Nations on November 28th, 1843, the continuity of its sovereignty and independence as a State has been presumed under international law.
In 1993, the United States formally acknowledged that it does not have a claim to Hawaiian sovereignty by way of treaty, plebiscite, or referendum. In fact, the only official claim that the United States has ever made to Hawaiian sovereignty is by its joint resolution of 1898, known as the “Newlands Resolution.” In 1988, however, the U.S. Department of State, through its Office of Legal Counsel, failed to verify the constitutionality of annexation by joint resolution.
Hui Aloha ʻĀina is a feat of grassroots organization that is unsurpassed in Hawaiian history. This association was disbanded in 1900, when it merged with Hui Kalaiʻāina to become Kūʻokoa Home Rula (Independent Home Rule Party). However, its legacy is so beloved, and its constitution so compelling, that there is growing interest in reviving this important institution today.
If our Lāhui today had the grassroots infrastucture that Hui Aloha ʻĀina provided us from 1893 to 1900, we could have already had an ʻaha by now, free from co-optation and judicial interference by the occupier. Consider that we sent a petition with more than 21,000 signatures to Washington D.C. in 1897, which defeated the annexation treaty. The petition succeeded without being initiated by an American law (Act 195), without funding from OHA (Office of Hawaiian Affairs), without a “Native Hawaiian” roll commission (Kanaʻiolowalu) appointed by an American governor (Neil Abercrombie), without a committee (Naʻi Aupuni) appointed by OHA, without outsourcing to an American company (Elections-America), and without rulemaking by the DOI (U.S. Department of Interior).
We can return to our grassroots today.
KA PAIO HANOHANO
THE HONORABLE STRUGGLE
NO KA MEA KĀKAU
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
He Hawaiʻi Aloha ʻĀina au, mau a mau, he mamo haʻaheo a kuʻu tūtū wahine nui ʻelua, Loke Kaʻilikea, no Kaupō, Maui, Ko Hawaiʻi Pae ʻĀina
Keokani Kipona Marciel is a great-great grandson of Loke Kaʻilikea (1857-1914), of Kaupō, Maui, who signed the historic Petition Against Annexation in 1897, which defeated the proposed treaty of illegal annexation of the Hawaiian Islands by a foreign country in 1898.
Keokani is a Professional Registered Parliamentarian accredited by the National Association of Parliamentarians. He currently serves as the Parliamentarian for the National Education Association of Southern Nevada.
Keokani is a Professional Registered Parliamentarian accredited by the National Association of Parliamentarians. He currently serves as the Parliamentarian for the National Education Association of Southern Nevada.
Scholarship
Support My Work
Nā Papaʻa - Archives
December 2020
May 2020
November 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
May 2019
April 2019
December 2018
April 2018
October 2017
January 2016
Nā Mahele - Categories
All
Americanized Hawaiians
Belligerent Occupation
Denationalization
Deoccupaton
Hawaiian Kingdom
Hawaiian Patriotic Societies
Ko Hawaii Pae Aina
La Hoihoi Ea
Lahui Hawaii Aloha Aina
La Kuokoa
Mauna Kea
No Treaty Of Cession
Olelo Hawaii
Organizational Procedure
Renationalization
RSS Feed