Reid Ginoza at 05:24, 14 May 2006

2006-05-14T05:24:07Z

Reid Ginoza at 22:47, 10 March 2006

2006-03-10T22:47:07Z

New page

164/ Of course, the United States
exercised no sovereignty over the
Hawaiian Islands in 1893.
Additionally, the native Hawaiians
were represented in the Territorial
Government. See preceding chapter
above.
165/ United States v. Wheeler, 435
U.S. 313, 323 (1977). OHA submits
that the concept of sovereignty as it
relates to Indian tribes is not
applicable to the claims of the
native Hawaiians, because whereas
Indian tribes were "domestic
dependent" nations with only powers
of a limited sovereignty (OHA's
Comments, Alternate Chapter III, p.
15), the native Hawaiians were
"citizens of an aboriginal nation
with internal and external attributes
of sovereignty" (OHA's Comments, p.
28). -One commenter notes that until
1898 Hawaii was a separate,
independent sovereign. Another
commenter suggests that Hawaiians
have a "claim to self-determination
as a sovereign people." While it is
true that Indian tribes had only
internal attributes of sovereignty,
the salient fact remains that under
traditional principles of Indian law,
Indian tribes have not been allowed
to recover for the loss of those
attributes of sovereignty that they
do possess, even under Section 2,
Clause (5) of the Indian Claims
Commission Act (25 U.S.C. §70 (a))
which encompasses "moral" claims
(Confederated Tribes of the Colville
Reservation v. United States, 25
Ind.Cl.Comm. 99, 103 (1971)).
Moreover, native Hawaiians are
citizens of the United States and the
State of Hawaii, their sovereigns.
166/ Such matters are regarded as
a political question. • See, e.g.,
Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 212
(1962).
167/ See, e.g., Tee-Hit-Ton
Indians v. United States, 348 U.S.
272, 285 (1955). The Fifth Amendment
provides that the United States shall
not take property without just
compensation.
168/ Confederated Tribes of the
Colville Reservation v. United States,
25 Ind.Cl.Comm. 99, 104 (1971).
169/ Fort Sill Apache Tribe of the
State of Oklahoma v. United States,
201 Ct.Cl. 630, 640-642 (1973).
170/ See Section 12 of the Act, 25
U.S.C. § 70(k).
171/ United States v. Mowat, 582
F.2d 1194, 1206-1207 (9th Cir. 1978),
cert, denied, 439 U.S. 967 (1978).
172/ Inupiat Community of the
Arctic Slope v. United States,
Ct.Cl. ,680 F.2d 122, 129 (1982),
cert, denied, 103 S.Ct. 299 (1982).
173/ Aleut Community of St. Paul
Island v. United States, 202 Ct.Cl.
182, 195 (1973).
174/ OHA does not dispute this
conclusion (OHA's Comments, Alternate
Chapter I I I , p. 16) and concedes that
" . . . n o Constitutional or statutory
provision requires the United States
to recognize a claim for loss of
sovereignty" (CHA's Comments, p. 29).
However, OHA asserts that there may be
a "moral duty on the part of the
United States to provide reparations
or restitution" (OHA's Comments,
Alternate Chapter III, p. 16).
175/ MacKenzie, p. 57.
176/ E.g., United States v.
Mitchell, 445 U.S. 535, 542-546
(1980), rehearing denied, 446 U.S. 992
(1980).
367

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-/ Of course, the United States
+<u>164</u>/ Of course, the United States
 exercised no sovereignty over the
 Hawaiian Islands in 1893.
@@ Line 6: / Line 6: @@
 Government. See preceding chapter
 above.
 / United States v. Wheeler, 435
 U.S. 313, 323 (1977). OHA submits
 that the concept of sovereignty as it
@@ Line 37: / Line 38: @@
 Commission Act (25 U.S.C. §70 (a))
 which encompasses "moral" claims
-(Confederated Tribes of the Colville
+(<u>Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation</u> v. <u>United States</u>, 25
 Ind.Cl.Comm. 99, 103 (1971)).
 Moreover, native Hawaiians are
 citizens of the United States and the
 State of Hawaii, their sovereigns.
 / Such matters are regarded as
 a political question. • See, e.g.,
-Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 212
+<u>Baker</u> v. <u>Carr</u>, 369 U.S. 186, 212
 (1962).
 / See, e.g., Tee-Hit-Ton
-Indians v. United States, 348 U.S.
+<u>167</u>/ See, e.g., <u>Tee-Hit-Ton Indians</u> v. <u>United States</u>, 348 U.S.
 , 285 (1955). The Fifth Amendment
 provides that the United States shall
 not take property without just
 compensation.
 / Confederated Tribes of the
-Colville Reservation v. United States,
+<u>168</u>/ <u>Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation</u> v. <u>United States</u>,
 Ind.Cl.Comm. 99, 104 (1971).
 / Fort Sill Apache Tribe of the
-State of Oklahoma v. United States,
+<u>169</u>/ <u>Fort Sill Apache Tribe of the State of Oklahoma</u> v. <u>United States</u>,
 Ct.Cl. 630, 640-642 (1973).
 / See Section 12 of the Act, 25
 U.S.C. § 70(k).
 / United States v. Mowat, 582
 F.2d 1194, 1206-1207 (9th Cir. 1978),
-cert, denied, 439 U.S. 967 (1978).
+<u>cert</u>. <u>denied</u>, 439 U.S. 967 (1978).
 / Inupiat Community of the
-Arctic Slope v. United States,
+<u>172</u>/ <u>Inupiat Community of the Arctic Slope</u> v. <u>United States</u>,
 Ct.Cl. ,680 F.2d 122, 129 (1982),
-cert, denied, 103 S.Ct. 299 (1982).
+<u>cert</u>. <u>denied</u>, 103 S.Ct. 299 (1982).
 / Aleut Community of St. Paul
-Island v. United States, 202 Ct.Cl.
+<u>173</u>/ <u>Aleut Community of St. Paul Island</u> v. <u>United States</u>, 202 Ct.Cl.
 , 195 (1973).
 / OHA does not dispute this
 conclusion (OHA's Comments, Alternate
-Chapter I I I , p. 16) and concedes that
+Chapter III, p. 16) and concedes that  "...no Constitutional or statutory
 provision requires the United States
 to recognize a claim for loss of
@@ Line 83: / Line 86: @@
 or restitution" (OHA's Comments,
 Alternate Chapter III, p. 16).
 / MacKenzie, p. 57.
-/ E.g., United States v.
+<u>175</u>/ MacKenzie, p. 57.
 Mitchell, 445 U.S. 535, 542-546
-(1980), rehearing denied, 446 U.S. 992
+<u>176</u>/ E.g., <u>United States</u> v. <u>Mitchell</u>, 445 U.S. 535, 542-546
 (1980).
+{{p|367}}

Template:Nhsc-v1-367 - Revision history

Reid Ginoza at 05:24, 14 May 2006

Reid Ginoza at 22:47, 10 March 2006