How do you figure?
Even if the Supreme Court could declare the action illegal, couldn’t the U.S. Congress simply pass a quick emergency bill changing the law so that it is legal? The Constitution doesn’t say the USA can’t take a territory by force, does it?
They signed the treaty, and more importantly, they dickered on the price and cashed the check (so to speak). About as legal as you can make it.
I dont get the racism here. Look, the Queen was nuts. She abrogated the Constitution of Hawaii unilaterally and wanted to replace it with a very racist Constitution. No white person could vote or own land, and allegedly all the land would belong to the Crown. Old Taboo laws would come back. When the Committee of Safety over-through her, she had exactly zero support. Not one person raised a hand. Yes, the Committee of Safety was a small group, but no one supported the Queen.
The Committee of Safety was led by a man who was born in Hawaii and whose parents were born there also. The fact that Sanford had paler skin than the Queen does not make him any less of a native born citizen. In fact mentioning the race of man born in the islands of parents born in the islands is kinda racist.
Yes, Mexico didnt have any really good reasons for starting the war.
wiki
"Mexicans who opposed direct conflict with the United States, including President José Joaquín de Herrera, were viewed as traitors.[28] Military opponents of de Herrera, supported by populist newspapers, considered Slidell’s presence in Mexico City an insult. When de Herrera considered receiving Slidell to settle the problem of Texas annexation peacefully, he was accused of treason and deposed. After a more nationalistic government under General Mariano Paredes y Arrillaga came to power, it publicly reaffirmed Mexico’s claim to Texas…April 23, 1846, the president of Mexico issued a proclamation, declaring Mexico’s intent to fight a “defensive war” against the encroachment of the United States.[53] On April 25, 1846, 2,000 Mexican cavalry crossed into the disputed territory and routed a small detachment of American soldiers sparking the “Thornton Affair” [53] Polk received word of the Thornton Affair, which, added to the Mexican government’s rejection of Slidell, Polk believed, constituted a casus belli (cause for war).[54] His message to Congress on May 11, 1846, claimed that “Mexico has passed the boundary of the United States, has invaded our territory and shed American blood upon American soil.”[55][56]
You have an unusual interpretation of Polk’s war.
Yes, that’s how it works. If the Supreme court rules that a particular law was unconstitutional (or otherwise illegal), then it’s effects were never legally valid in the first place. If Hawaiian annexation were ruled illegal by the supreme court, then Hawaii was never part of the US and you have to work from there. The Supreme Court doesn’t issue rulings like that because undoing adding a territory to the US more than a century ago would create a giant mess, but that several people including me have pointed that out already.
If the supreme court declared the original annexation was illegal, then the annexation would be annulled and Hawaii would not have been a part of the US for the last hundred years. Congress could pass whatever law they want changing Hawaii’s status now, but it wouldn’t get rid of the huge mess of problems caused by declaring Hawaii’s last hundred years of rulership invalid. Congress can’t pass a post de facto law because the constitution forbids it. But again, the SC is NOT GOING TO DO THAT because it would make a complete disaster and that’s not how they operate.
Gosh, you mean Wikipedia does.
Or, say actual * history *does.
Yep. I have been trying to inform people of the truth now for years. Even “Adam Ruins everything” got it wrong.
I don understand any of this. What problems would be caused by declaring the annexation invalid?
So, if it never became a state, every law, title, or governmental actions taken since then would be invalid.
That’s not necessarily the case. Even in the zero percent chance that this ever happens, the new country of Hawaii is perfectly free to continue enforcing any laws that are currently on the books.
There’s many, many examples of newly independent countries not immediately rushing headlong into a legal train wreck. It’s quite naive to think otherwise.
Yes, it’s exactly the case. The not-new country of Hawaii can do whatever it wants internally, but it can’t pass laws that affect the rest of the US, including things like granting US citizenship. Anyone who’s US citizenship was because they or their ancestors were born in Hawaii would not be a citizen any more. Anything from the US involving Hawaii is probably gone since the US congress wouldn’t have ever had authority over Hawaii, so all kinds of transfers of money and ownership get suddenly invalidated. The US Navy would be operating an illegal base, for example.
Again, there’s a “zero percent chance that this ever happens” because the Supreme Court isn’t interested in creating legal train wrecks, and declaring that the annexation of Hawaii was illegal would create one on a scale never seen before.
There aren’t any examples of countries made independent from the US by the USSC declaring their annexation invalid 100 years after the fact.
There is a different between illegitimate and non-existent. I think you’re conflating the two concepts.
Hawai’i has been part of the USA. This is a fact, and the USSC is not going to pretend that they can retroactively rewrite history. But if it wasn’t supposed to be part of the USA, then there may be a remedy wherein it is disentangled going forward.
At this point, that’s pretty hard to do, because a lot of Hawai’i residents see themselves as USA citizens. But if the mainland keeps acting like Hawai’i isn’t really part of the USA, and calling Hawaiians foreigners, it’s going to become a lot easier for residents to accept a separation.
If the SC rules that a legislative action was illegal, that means it has no longer has any legal force and so Hawaii was never a part of the US. I’m not incorrectly conflating any concepts, the strange idea that the USSC would somehow rule that Hawaii’s annexation and/or statehood is illegal but should be treated as valid and that a special process for removing Hawaii from the union would be created out of whole cloth and forced into place in direct defiance of the constitution is… a bit off.
I’m not even sure what argument there is that the annexation was illegal in the first place, so far all people have offered is that they don’t like the way it works, but can’t list any actual law or legal principle that violated. (“Annexation requires approval by the majority of people in the region” isn’t spelled out in any law or legal principle, for example).
Legally speaking, there’s no such thing as ‘wasn’t supposed to be part of the USA’. Either it is a state and would need to exit the union, or it never was a state and there’s a huge mess of now-invalid laws to resolve. The remedy would be for congress (or the other 49 states) to work with Hawaii to agree on an exit process, likely requiring a constitutional amendment, the USSC simply is not going to invent out of whole cloth, then attempt to force people to follow some special process for kicking a state out of the union.
When this sort of thing happens in real life, the courts usually rule that, if everyone involved had every reasonable basis to believe that the marriage was valid, then there was in fact a marriage–especially if the couple is several years down the road with children, property, and what not. The same would probably apply if Hawaii’s statehood were challenged based on its annexation in 1897. Given that everyone has been acting like Hawaii has been a state for going on 60 years, the likely ruling is that there was in fact statehood even if some details were wonky.
What is more interesting is the possibility that, one day, the majority of Hawaiians may want independence and petition the US government for same. What would the reaction be then, I wonder?
It would be: No fucking way!
Do you care to elucidate your position, or just attempt a mic drop and move on? 'Cause that ain’t doin it for me.
uhh, what the hell are you talking about? Hawaii as a state, or as an independent country, cannot pass laws about things like granting US citizenship.
What the hell are you talking about? The citizenship of persons who may have been born in Hawaii in the last century in no case would be automatically revoked. It’s absurd. And again, this matter of citizenship is a matter for the Federal Government to deal with, not Hawaii.
No, that isn’t a reasonable assumption at all.
There’s a ton of historical examples of new countries doing just fine, thank you very much, after splitting from a country that annexed them. Take, for example, the Baltic countries, which were seized by the Soviet Union in 1939. The occupation and annexation of these countries was never recognized by the United States. Upon independence in 1991, talks began on the disposition of Russian military forces and a variety of other matters, and so far as I can tell, the three Baltic countries didn’t descend into legal chaos and the breakdown of society in 1991.
There’s a zero percent chance of this happening because there’s no law or facts to back up the assertion of illegal annexation. The idea that courts are maintaining law, order, and civilization in Hawaii by not thinking of letting them go free is frankly irrational, bizarre, and total “alien autopsy at Area 51”-level conspiracy thinking.