Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Justice Dept. doubts bill's constitutionality; act's progress in congress uncertain
West Hawaii Today ^ | 9/22/05 | Samantha Young

Posted on 09/23/2005 12:48:51 PM PDT by freespirited

WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration continues to question whether the Constitution would allow Native Hawaiians to form their own government, according to a Justice Department official.

While Justice attorneys have worked through a host of issues dealing with Hawaiian gambling, military readiness and civil and criminal jurisdictions, underlying legal questions remain about creating an all-Hawaiian entity.

"There are substantial unresolved Constitutional concerns regarding whether Congress may treat the Native Hawaiians as it does Indian tribes and whether Congress may establish and recognize a Native Hawaiian entity," said Justice Department spokesman John Nowacki.

The Justice Department statement comes less than a week after Hawaii lawmakers issued a press release Friday touting a new Native Hawaiian bill they negotiated over the summer with the Bush administration. It also provides the opposition some added firepower in the Senate when it takes up the bill later this year.

The bill would grant roughly 400,000 Native Hawaiians the right to organize and negotiate for self-rule from the state and federal governments.

In an effort to win passage in the Senate, Hawaii lawmakers scaled back provisions on gaming and shielded the federal and state governments from Hawaiian settlement claims for land and resources. As many as six Republicans have blocked the bill from coming to a vote on the Senate floor.

Senate leaders postponed scheduled action earlier this month on the Native Hawaiian bill to respond to Hurricane Katrina. No date has been rescheduled for the debate.

Sen. Daniel Akaka, D-Hawaii, issued a statement Wednesday reaffirming the delegation's earlier agreement with the Justice Department.

"Every practical policy issue raised by DOJ in our negotiations has been addressed and resolved," Akaka said. "Although I realize and respect that there are those who have differing views, I feel strongly that the bill is Constitutional."

Rep. Ed Case, D-Hawaii, pointed to 150 years of Indian case law allowing Congress to recognize indigenous peoples of the United States, including Native Hawaiians.

"Anytime an opponent of a proposition wants to slow it down, one of the quivers in the arsenal is its constitutionality in the courts," Case said. "The question should and will ultimately be decided by the courts."

Critics of a Hawaiian government have repeatedly warned it would violate the Constitution by allowing a single racial entity to operate within the United States.

In raising the constitutional concern, Nowacki cited the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Rice vs. Cayetano. In that 2000 case, the court ruled elections for the Office of Hawaiian Affairs should be open to all state residents, not just Native Hawaiians. The Hawaiian governing entity would only be open to Hawaiians.

"As the Supreme Court has stated, whether Native Hawaiians are eligible for tribal states is 'a matter of some dispute' and 'of considerable moment and difficulty,'" Nowacki said.

Honolulu attorney Bill Burgess, who has flown to Washington several times to lobby against the bill, welcomed the Justice Department's latest interpretation.

"The electorate (in the bill) is restrictive to the very same group in Rice v. Cayetano which was held to be in violation of the 15th amendment," Burgess said.

Akaka and Case said the federal courts should ultimately decide whether a Native Hawaiian government would be constitutional. But for that to happen, Congress must first pass the bill.

"I believe firmly in Congress' authority to extend the federal policy of self-governance and self-determination to Native Hawaiians, Hawaii's indigenous people," Akaka said.


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: akaka; hawaii; nativehawaiians; ricevcayetano; sb147
"I believe firmly in Congress' authority to extend the federal policy of self-governance and self-determination to Native Hawaiians, Hawaii's indigenous people," Akaka said.

Would these self-governing and self-determining Hawaiians accept a responsibility to be self-sufficient, or would they still expect all sorts of federal benefits?

1 posted on 09/23/2005 12:48:58 PM PDT by freespirited
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: freespirited
Would these self-governing and self-determining Hawaiians accept a responsibility to be self-sufficient, or would they still expect all sorts of federal benefits?

I think we all know the answer to that question...

2 posted on 09/23/2005 12:52:02 PM PDT by frogjerk (LIBERALISM - Being miserable for no good reason)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freespirited

What did the founders say about Hawaii?


3 posted on 09/23/2005 12:52:45 PM PDT by Mind-numbed Robot (Not all that needs to be done needs to be done by the government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: frogjerk

"self-governing and self-determining Hawaiians"

NO WAY!

If they get special rights, G-D`it I want special rights too.


4 posted on 09/23/2005 12:55:12 PM PDT by JeffersonRepublic.com (There is no truth in the news, and no news in the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: freespirited
"...or would they still expect all sorts of federal benefits?"

I think we all know the answer to that.

5 posted on 09/23/2005 12:57:23 PM PDT by Czar (StillFedUptotheTeeth@Washington)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: frogjerk
Yes, and it's worked so well for the Indians on our mainland.

Let the Hawaiians have their own nation. 49 states is enough for US.

They can export pineapple, sugar, and vacations to Americans.

But NO foreign aid to them.

.

6 posted on 09/23/2005 12:58:18 PM PDT by repentant_pundit (For the Sons and Daughters of Every Planet on the Earth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: freespirited
It has nothing to do with the Hawaiian people. It has everything to do with the kickbacks Akaka (not a real Hawaiian) is getting from the Casino People.
Lets not get confused here!!!
7 posted on 09/23/2005 1:00:33 PM PDT by Steamburg (Pretenders everywhere)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JeffersonRepublic.com
If they get special rights, G-D`it I want special rights too.

Now you're talking. Let's get a bill passed to make FReepers a self-determining and self-governing group. Haven't we been oppressed too?

8 posted on 09/23/2005 1:05:48 PM PDT by freespirited
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: freespirited
"Doubt it's constitutional" Now where did we hear that before? Oh yeah. When W. went ahead and signed McCain Feingold, only to see the Courts uphold most of the law.

If the bill is wrong, Mr. Bush, just veto the damned thing. Don't count on the courts to do the work for you.
9 posted on 09/23/2005 1:06:36 PM PDT by dagnabbit (Vincente Fox's opening line at the Mexico-USA summit meeting: "Bring out the Gimp!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mind-numbed Robot

"What did the founders say about Hawaii?"



I know you're being sarcastic, but that's exactly the question we must ask. The Constitution gives Congress the power to regulate commerce "with the Indian Tribes," since Indians were mostly outside of the territory belonging to the U.S. and in any event were not subject to U.S. jurisdiction. This is the basis for the concept of tribal sovereignty. It seems to me that Hawaii, which was an independent republic that gave up its sovereignty when it was incorporated into the U.S. in 1898., could not be deemed to have a sovereign Indian Tribe within its boundaries.


10 posted on 09/23/2005 1:14:36 PM PDT by AuH2ORepublican (http://auh2orepublican.blogspot.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: AuH2ORepublican

Excellent analysis. Thanks.


11 posted on 09/23/2005 1:26:50 PM PDT by Mind-numbed Robot (Not all that needs to be done needs to be done by the government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: freespirited

" Let's get a bill passed to make FReepers a self-determining and self-governing group"

LOL


12 posted on 09/23/2005 2:02:00 PM PDT by JeffersonRepublic.com (There is no truth in the news, and no news in the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: freespirited
A new state could be made out of part of Hawaii, with the permission of the current legislature of that state. That would be Constitutional as it's provided for in Art. 4, section 3 of the Constitution. It would need to be a single territory, but would not have to be contiguous, but could be made up of a bunch of little pieces.

But otherwise their situation is not analogous to that of American Indians, who were represented by governments (tribes) that made legitimate treaties with the government of the United States.

13 posted on 09/23/2005 2:06:57 PM PDT by El Gato
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steamburg
Akaka (not a real Hawaiian)

Akaka is a Japanese name is it not? Of course that doen't mean he's not 1/2, 1/4, 1/8, 1/16 .. or 1/256ths Native Hawaian.

14 posted on 09/23/2005 2:08:55 PM PDT by El Gato
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: freespirited
I think they ought to make one of the Hawaiian islands into this new reservation. It should be renamed Havaki of the North New.

They ought to scare up some Hawaiian with royal blood. He or she could be declared Alii Nui. Then every other native Hawaiian should be rounded up and shipped to that island. Now, since we want true tradition here, everyone who isn't Alii Nui will naturally be a slave of the Alii Nui. A few of them will need to be killed immediately for walking on the shadow of the Alii Nui, but it's a small price to pay for tradition.

The lasses, of course, will want to make themselves available to all passing sailors for a few pennies. Sounds more like paradise the more I think of it. What a liberty port!

I happen to think the sugar revolution was one of the true black marks in American history. I also think the Calvinists missionaries that first went to convert the islands had no clue on humanity or Christianity.

Still, anyone that harkens back to the days of the Monarchy are just a bit twisted in their own style.

15 posted on 09/23/2005 6:25:36 PM PDT by stevem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson