Reid Ginoza at 03:59, 6 May 2006

2006-05-06T03:59:59Z

Reid Ginoza at 20:52, 10 March 2006

2006-03-10T20:52:27Z

New page

title claim are invalid. 120/
The crux of the second part of the
recognized title argument is that the
"...federal government did recognize
and acknowledge the existing
government of Hawaii and the rights of
that government to the territory
within its domain." 121/ This theory
contends that the unratified treaty
between the United States and the
Hawaiian Kingdom negotiated in 1826,
together with the 1849 and 1875
treaties noted above, effected an
acknowledgment and recognition of the
rights of the Hawaiian Government to
lands within its domain. 122/
The source of recognized title is
the United States Congress, and
Congress can grant recognized title to
land only when it exercises
sovereignty over said land. 123/
Prior to 1898, the Hawaiian Islands
were not part of the territory of the
United States and Congress did not
have sovereignty over them.
Accordingly, the "recognized" title
theory advanced cannot be reconciled
with these requirements for the
existence of recognized ti~le.
Moreover, the alleged recognition and
acknowledgment by the United States of
the "rights" of the Hawaiian
Government to the territory within its
domain, is analogous to a situation
where Congress, by statute, accords a
native group only the right of
"permissive occupation"—in effect, an
"acknowledgment" that a native group
occupies and uses certain lands in its
possession. 124/ Yet, such an
"acknowledgment" does not give rise to
recognized title. 125/ Similarly, a
treaty that acknowledges only that a
particular native group is occupying
and using certain lands does not give
rise to recognized title. 126/ As
noted previously, an unratified treaty
cannot be the source of recognized
title. 127/
Since the Hawaiian Islands were not
part of the territory of the United
States prior to 1898, Congress had no
sovereignty over the Hawaiian Islands
and, therefore, no jurisdiction over
the native Hawaiians prior to 1898.
Thus, Congress could not have granted
native Hawaiians recognized title to
the Crown and Government lands prior
to annexation. Accordingly, no grant
of recognized title to the native
Hawaiians, as a group, was possible by
virtue of the one unratified and two
ratified treaties that predated
annexation. 128/
Nor did the Joint Resolution of
Annexation constitute a recognition of
title for native Hawaiians. 129/
The section of the Joint Resolution
relating to public lands designates as
beneficiaries the "inhabitants of the
Hawaiian Islands," not "native
Hawaiians." 130/ This use of language
is particularly important because
Congress was well aware of the
existence of the native Hawaiians, and
looked on them as distinct from the
rest of the residents of Hawaii. 131/
Congress also viewed the "native
Hawaiians" as a distinct ethnic group.
132/ Finally, the legislative history
of the Joint Resolution makes clear
that the "inhabitants of the Hawaiian
Islands" were viewed as being all
109,000 people living on the Hawaiian
Islands. 133/ If Congress had meant
to recognize title of the native
Hawaiians in the Joint Resolution of
1898, it would, among other things,
have used the term "native Hawaiians"
rather than "inhabitants of the
Hawaiian Islands."
The Organic Act of 1900 also did
not establish recognized title of the
native Hawaiians to the ceded lands.
134/ The Organic Act of 1900
provides, in part: "The laws of
Hawaii relating to public lands...
shall continue in force until Congress
shall otherwise provide." 135/ This
343

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-title claim are invalid. 120/
+title claim are invalid. <u>120</u>/
 The crux of the second part of the
 recognized title argument is that the
-"...federal government did recognize
+"...federal government did <u>recognize</u>
-and acknowledge the existing
+and <u>acknowledge</u> the existing
 government of Hawaii and the rights of
 that government to the territory
-within its domain." 121/ This theory
+within its domain." <u>121</u>/ This theory
 contends that the unratified treaty
 between the United States and the
@@ Line 14: / Line 15: @@
 acknowledgment and recognition of the
 rights of the Hawaiian Government to
-lands within its domain. 122/
+lands within its domain. <u>122</u>/
 The source of recognized title is
 the United States Congress, and
 Congress can grant recognized title to
 land only when it exercises
-sovereignty over said land. 123/
+sovereignty over said land. <u>123</u>/
 Prior to 1898, the Hawaiian Islands
 were not part of the territory of the
@@ Line 27: / Line 29: @@
 theory advanced cannot be reconciled
 with these requirements for the
-existence of recognized ti~le.
+existence of recognized title.
 Moreover, the alleged recognition and
 acknowledgment by the United States of
@@ Line 38: / Line 40: @@
 "acknowledgment" that a native group
 occupies and uses certain lands in its
-possession. 124/ Yet, such an
+possession. <U>124</u>/ Yet, such an
 "acknowledgment" does not give rise to
-recognized title. 125/ Similarly, a
+recognized title. <u>125</u>/ Similarly, a
 treaty that acknowledges only that a
 particular native group is occupying
 and using certain lands does not give
-rise to recognized title. 126/ As
+rise to recognized title. <u>126</u>/ As
 noted previously, an unratified treaty
 cannot be the source of recognized
-title. 127/
+title. <u>127</u>/
 Since the Hawaiian Islands were not
 part of the territory of the United
@@ Line 62: / Line 65: @@
 virtue of the one unratified and two
 ratified treaties that predated
-annexation. 128/
+annexation. <U>128</u>/
 Nor did the Joint Resolution of
 Annexation constitute a recognition of
-title for native Hawaiians. 129/
+title for native Hawaiians. <u>129</u>/
 The section of the Joint Resolution
 relating to public lands designates as
 beneficiaries the "inhabitants of the
 Hawaiian Islands," not "native
-Hawaiians." 130/ This use of language
+Hawaiians." <u>130</u>/ This use of language
 is particularly important because
 Congress was well aware of the
 existence of the native Hawaiians, and
 looked on them as distinct from the
-rest of the residents of Hawaii. 131/
+rest of the residents of Hawaii. <u>131</u>/
 Congress also viewed the "native
 Hawaiians" as a distinct ethnic group.
-/ Finally, the legislative history
+<u>132</u>/ Finally, the legislative history
 of the Joint Resolution makes clear
 that the "inhabitants of the Hawaiian
 Islands" were viewed as being all
 ,000 people living on the Hawaiian
-Islands. 133/ If Congress had meant
+Islands. <u>133</u>/ If Congress had meant
 to recognize title of the native
 Hawaiians in the Joint Resolution of
@@ Line 90: / Line 94: @@
 rather than "inhabitants of the
 Hawaiian Islands."
 The Organic Act of 1900 also did
 not establish recognized title of the
 native Hawaiians to the ceded lands.
-/ The Organic Act of 1900
+<u>134</u>/ The Organic Act of 1900
 provides, in part: "The laws of
 Hawaii relating to public lands...
 shall continue in force until Congress
-shall otherwise provide." 135/ This
+shall otherwise provide." <u>135</u>/ This
+{{p|343}}

Template:Nhsc-v1-343 - Revision history

Reid Ginoza at 03:59, 6 May 2006

Reid Ginoza at 20:52, 10 March 2006