Hawaiian Kingdom Independence Blog

Umi Perkins has a good response in the Hawaii Independent to Ian Lind’s piece that was published earlier in Honolulu Civil Beat. I have appreciated Lind’s writings in the past but in this case he really shows his ignorance and Perkins does a good job addressing some of the points.

Lind’s main problem is relying on Hawaii Supreme Court decisions as any kind of valid definition to the limits of Hawaii’s sovereignty. This is inherently self-contradictory and problematic. It is the occupier’s court. It would be like saying that the restoration of the sovereignty of the Baltic States (Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia) should have been limited by only what the Soviet courts would have allowed. Or Kuwait limited by Iraq’s courts. Of course that’s nonsense.

Although I don’t belittle their efforts like Lind does, I do also have issues with anyone who claims to be king (or queen) of Hawaii because the Hawaiian Kingdom constitution itself establishes the process of succession, under Article 22:

In case there is no heir as above provided, then the successor shall be the person whom the Sovereign shall appoint with the consent of the Nobles, and publicly proclaim as such during the King’s life;

(This article is similar in both the 1864 and the 1887 “Bayonet” constitutions, so whichever version one assumes to be the last valid constitution, the process is the same.)

Her Majesty Queen Lili’uokalani died on November 17, 1917, and due to the American invasion and occupation which had made the kingdom government ineffective, she failed to receive confirmation from the Nobles of the Legislative Assembly for her nomination in accordance with this article of the Constitution. The article goes on then to say:

…should there be no such appointment and proclamation, and the Throne should become vacant, then the Cabinet Council, immediately after the occurring of such vacancy, shall cause a meeting of the Legislative Assembly, who shall elect by ballot some native Alii of the Kingdom as Successor to the Throne; and the Successor so elected shall become a new Stirps for a Royal Family; and the succession from the Sovereign thus elected, shall be regulated by the same as the present Royal Family of Hawaii.

This happened twice in Hawaii during the kingdom era, with Lunalilo and Kalakaua, when a successor wasn’t named, and a new king was instead elected by the Legislative Assembly after an interregnum.

But now we are in a situation where due to the prolonged illegal U.S. occupation, the bodies of the government—the Cabinet Council and the Legislative Assembly—are not in place to select a new successor to the throne. Thus there has been a prolonged interregnum. But this is the process that would have to occur, once those bodies are reestablished in some way, for a new monarch to be elected in a manner that would be considered legitimate, under the existing constitution.

There is a healthy debate as to whether the future of Hawaii should involve a monarchy at all, as most people here including most descendants of the Hawaiian kingdom have grown up valuing democratic and republican (small d and r) values, which are much more than just American. Yet there are many constitutional monarchies around the world, and in most cases the monarchy does not have any kind of real substantial power in the laws and administration of the country, but plays an important role in international diplomacy and protocol, and also serves as a symbol and primary patron for the culture of its people.  I personally would support the restoration of the Hawaiian monarchy and the selection of a new king or queen, but only if its role was limited in this regard, similar to many of the constitutional monarchies still in existence today.

[Edited to add this later…]

Hawaii was already a constitutional monarchy with three branches of government and an elected legislature, with a defined and limited executive role for the monarch in place prior to the occupation, so it’s certainly not unreasonable to assume that Hawai’i would have continued to evolve like other constitutional monarchies anyway, with the monarch taking on more of a diplomatic, cultural and symbolic role in a modern, democratic government. And I believe that is what we can transition toward in the future that will ensure Hawaii’s heritage and distinct international identity, be embraced by a majority of the population and thus be effective, and be an actual improvement over the occupation government we have now, which is what everyone wants anyway.

Check out this new website for The Committee of Hawaiian Nationals (hawaiiannational.com)

The Committee of Hawaiian Nationals (CHN) was formed a few years ago by the late Pomaikaʻiokalani Kinney, Pilipo Souza, Leon Siu and other patriots.

The purpose of the committee is to encourage people to get involved in peaceful, practical, creative actions to help speed up the return of the Hawaiian Kingdom as a sovereign, independent nation.

Often seen with • FREE HAWAII • HAWAIIAN INDEPENDENCE• FAKE STATE banners, signs and t-shirts, CHN has initiated or joined in with many highly effective, media-grabbing protests, press briefings, demonstrations, and thought-provoking activities and events.

CHN is determined to utilize opportunities to remind the U.S., the State of Hawaii and the general public about our plight and that we, the people of the Hawaiian Kingdom, despite being persecuted are alive and kicking.

We invite you to get involved!

Today marks the 120th anniversary of President Grover Cleveland’s message to Congress regarding the situation in Hawaii.

I highly recommend you take a few minutes and go (re)read it. Not only is it quite informative in understanding the true history of Hawaii and the nefarious nature of the overthrow, but it is remarkably relevant to many of today’s issues and the role the U.S. is still struggling with in terms of obligations abroad, the role of international law, and the proper conduct of powerful nations in relation to weaker ones.

Here’s a couple passages:

By an act of war, committed with the participation of a diplomatic representative of the United States and without authority of Congress, the Government of a feeble but friendly and confiding people has been overthrown. A substantial wrong has thus been done which a due regard for our national character as well as the rights of the injured people requires we should endeavor to repair. The provisional government has not assumed a republican or other constitutional form, but has remained a mere executive council or oligarchy, set up without the assent of the people. It has not sought to find a permanent basis of popular support and has given no evidence of an intention to do so. Indeed, the representatives of that government assert that the people of Hawaii are unfit for popular government and frankly avow that they can be best ruled by arbitrary or despotic power.

The law of nations is founded upon reason and justice, and the rules of conduct governing individual relations between citizens or subjects of a civilized state are equally applicable as between enlightened nations. The considerations that international law is without a court for its enforcement, and that obedience to its commands practically depends upon good faith, instead of upon the mandate of a superior tribunal, only give additional sanction to the law itself and brand any deliberate infraction of it not merely as a wrong but as a disgrace. A man of true honor protects the unwritten word which binds his conscience more scrupulously, if possible, than he does the bond a breach of which subjects him to legal liabilities; and the United States in aiming to maintain itself as one of the most enlightened of nations would do its citizens gross injustice if it applied to its international relations any other than a high standard of honor and morality. On that ground the United States can not properly be put in the position of countenancing a wrong after its commission any more than in that of consenting to it in advance. On that ground it can not allow itself to refuse to redress an injury inflicted through an abuse of power by officers clothed with its authority and wearing its uniform; and on the same ground, if a feeble but friendly state is in danger of being robbed of its independence and its sovereignty by a misuse of the name and power of the United States, the United States can not fail to vindicate its honor and its sense of justice by an earnest effort to make all possible reparation.