Template:Nhsc-v1-333 - Revision history

Reid Ginoza at 02:38, 6 May 2006

2006-05-06T02:38:58Z

Reid Ginoza at 02:37, 6 May 2006

2006-05-06T02:37:34Z

Reid Ginoza at 17:05, 10 March 2006

2006-03-10T17:05:13Z

New page

Existing Law, Native Hawaiians, And Compensation
In light of the history of
landholding laws in Hawaii, the fall
of the monarchy, and annexation as set
forth in the preceding two chapters,
the Commission has examined whether
the native Hawaiians have any legal
claim to compensation from the United
States for loss of land or
sovereignty. The present chapter sets
forth the analysis and findings of
this review. In preparing this
chapter, the Commission has reviewed a
number of articles and reports making
the legal argument in favor of
compensation. These include Melody
MacKenzie's report for the Office of
Hawaiian Affairs, Sovereignty and
Land: Honoring the Native Hawaiian
Claim, yj Karen Blondin's A Case For
Reparations for Native Hawaiians (16
Hawaiian Bar Journal 13), and H.
Rodger Betts' unpublished Report on
the Hawaiian Native Claims (Second
Draft, February 17, 1978). The
Commission also attempted to address
the views and analyses presented by a
number of people at the Commission's
hearings throughout Hawaii in January,
1982. In addition, the Commission has
taken into account a number of
comments received during the comment
period on this chapter as it appeared
in the Draft Report of Findings.
Because of their scope, special
attention was given to comments
received from Senator Daniel K.
Inouye, Congressman Daniel K. Akaka,
the Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA),
and Patrick Hanifin. _2/
In the following sections, the
chapter first sets forth the
background for the analysis, since
much of it depends on technical legal
concepts and terms. It then reviews
whether the native Hawaiians are
entitled to compensation for loss of
their land under present law, and
whether they are entitled to
compensation for loss of their
sovereignty. Finally, this chapter
compares the native Hawaiians' claims
to those of the Alaska Natives,
addressed by Congress in the Alaska
Native Claims Settlement Act. 3/
A. BACKGROUND
Over the years, a number of
different native groups and
organizations have sought compensation
from the United States for loss of
lands and loss of sovereignty. As a
result, a large body of law has
developed. That law is made up of
both statutes passed by Congress and
of cases decided by courts. Much of
that law has been developed because
American Indians have made claims for
compensation; other law has grown out
of claims by Alaska Native groups. In
the discussion of whether the native
Hawaiians have viable claims for
compensation, the analysis examines
whether the existing law—statutes and
cases—provides a basis for giving
compensation. Without in any way
suggesting that Hawaiian natives are
an Indian tribe, the law developed for
and about Indian tribes will be
reviewed to determine whether this
body of law provides a legal basis for
the native Hawaiian claims. 4/
Generally, law providing that
native groups may be entitled to
compensation for loss of land has
developed under two legal principles:
first, that a native group had
"aboriginal title" to lands, and those
lands were taken by the United Stages.
and second, that the native group had
"recognized title" to lands—title
that the United States specifically
acknowledged under its laws—and those
lands were taken by the United States.
A native group must meet a number of
technical legal requirements in order
to be entitled to compensation under
either principle. This chapter will
analyze the facts regarding the native
Hawaiian history and land law in the
context of those legal requirements.
333

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:38, 6 May 2006
Line 1:		Line 1:
	==Existing Law, Native Hawaiians, And Compensation==		==Existing Law, Native Hawaiians, And Compensation==
−
−	~~In light of the history of~~
−	~~landholding laws in Hawaii, the fall~~
−	~~of the monarchy, and annexation as set~~
−	~~forth in the preceding two chapters,~~
−	~~the Commission has examined whether~~
−	~~the native Hawaiians have any legal~~
−	~~claim to compensation from the United~~
−	~~States for loss of land or~~
−	~~sovereignty. The present chapter sets~~
−	~~forth the analysis and findings of~~
−	~~this review. In preparing this~~
−	~~chapter, the Commission has reviewed a~~
−	~~number of articles and reports making~~
−	~~the legal argument in favor of~~
−	~~compensation. These include Melody~~
−	~~MacKenzie's report for the Office of~~
−	~~Hawaiian Affairs, <u>Sovereignty and Land: Honoring the Native Hawaiian Claim</u>, <u>1</u>/ Karen Blondin's <u>A Case For Reparations for Native Hawaiians</u> (16~~
−	~~Hawaiian Bar Journal 13), and H.~~
−	~~Rodger Betts' unpublished <u>Report on the Hawaiian Native Claims</u> (Second~~
−	~~Draft, February 17, 1978). The~~
−	~~Commission also attempted to address~~
−	~~the views and analyses presented by a~~
−	~~number of people at the Commission's~~
−	~~hearings throughout Hawaii in January,~~
−	~~1982. In addition, the Commission has~~
−	~~taken into account a number of~~
−	~~comments received during the comment~~
−	~~period on this chapter as it appeared~~
−	~~in the Draft Report of Findings.~~
−	~~Because of their scope, special~~
−	~~attention was given to comments~~
−	~~received from Senator Daniel K.~~
−	~~Inouye, Congressman Daniel K. Akaka,~~
−	~~the Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA),~~
−	~~and Patrick Hanifin. <u>2</u>/~~
−
−	~~In the following sections, the~~
−	~~chapter first sets forth the~~
−	~~background for the analysis, since~~
−	~~much of it depends on technical legal~~
−	~~concepts and terms. It then reviews~~
−	~~whether the native Hawaiians are~~
−	~~entitled to compensation for loss of~~
−	~~their land under present law, and~~
−	~~whether they are entitled to~~
−	~~compensation for loss of their~~
−	~~sovereignty. Finally, this chapter~~
−	~~compares the native Hawaiians' claims~~
−	~~to those of the Alaska Natives,~~
−	~~addressed by Congress in the Alaska~~
−	~~Native Claims Settlement Act. <u>3</u>/~~
−
−	~~===A. BACKGROUND===~~
−	~~Over the years, a number of~~
−	~~different native groups and~~
−	~~organizations have sought compensation~~
−	~~from the United States for loss of~~
−	~~lands and loss of sovereignty. As a~~
−	~~result, a large body of law has~~
−	~~developed. That law is made up of~~
−	~~both statutes passed by Congress and~~
−	~~of cases decided by courts. Much of~~
−	~~that law has been developed because~~
−	~~American Indians have made claims for~~
−	~~compensation; other law has grown out~~
−	~~of claims by Alaska Native groups. In~~
−	~~the discussion of whether the native~~
−	~~Hawaiians have viable claims for~~
−	~~compensation, the analysis examines~~
−	~~whether the existing law—statutes and~~
−	~~cases—provides a basis for giving~~
−	~~compensation. Without in any way~~
−	~~suggesting that Hawaiian natives are~~
−	~~an Indian tribe, the law developed for~~
−	~~and about Indian tribes will be~~
−	~~reviewed to determine whether this~~
−	~~body of law provides a legal basis for~~
−	~~the native Hawaiian claims. <u>4==Existing Law, Native Hawaiians, And Compensation==~~

	In light of the history of		In light of the history of

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-Existing Law, Native Hawaiians, And Compensation
+==Existing Law, Native Hawaiians, And Compensation==
 In light of the history of
 landholding laws in Hawaii, the fall
@@ Line 16: / Line 17: @@
 compensation. These include Melody
 MacKenzie's report for the Office of
-Hawaiian Affairs, Sovereignty and
+Hawaiian Affairs, <u>Sovereignty and Land: Honoring the Native Hawaiian Claim</u>, <u>1</u>/ Karen Blondin's <u>A Case For Reparations for Native Hawaiians</u> (16
 Hawaiian Bar Journal 13), and H.
-Rodger Betts' unpublished Report on
+Rodger Betts' unpublished <u>Report on the Hawaiian Native Claims</u> (Second
 Draft, February 17, 1978). The
 Commission also attempted to address
@@ Line 38: / Line 35: @@
 Inouye, Congressman Daniel K. Akaka,
 the Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA),
-and Patrick Hanifin. _2/
+and Patrick Hanifin. <u>2</u>/
 In the following sections, the
 chapter first sets forth the
@@ Line 53: / Line 51: @@
 to those of the Alaska Natives,
 addressed by Congress in the Alaska
-Native Claims Settlement Act. 3/
+Native Claims Settlement Act. <u>3</u>/
 A. BACKGROUND
 Over the years, a number of
 different native groups and
@@ Line 79: / Line 78: @@
 reviewed to determine whether this
 body of law provides a legal basis for
-the native Hawaiian claims. 4/
+the native Hawaiian claims. <u>4==Existing Law, Native Hawaiians, And Compensation==
 Generally, law providing that
 native groups may be entitled to
@@ Line 99: / Line 178: @@
 Hawaiian history and land law in the
 context of those legal requirements.
+{{p|333}}