"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?
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)
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.)
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)
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)
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!")
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
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
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson