Recognition Or Secession? US House Votes For Native Hawaiian Sovereignty
By a vote of 245-164, the United States House of Representatives has passed the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act. If subsequently passed by the Senate and signed into law by the President, the Act would transfer a percentage of public-owned lands to a native Hawaiian government within the state of Hawaii. The legislation would collect some 400,000 ethnic Hawaiians scattered across the country into a newly affiliated tribe, eventually endowed with the powers of a sovereign state, including freedom from state taxes and regulations and separate police power.
"The passage of the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act is an important milestone for all the people of Hawaii," said U.S. Senator Daniel K. Akaka, the bill's author. "We have a moral obligation, unfulfilled since the overthrow of Queen Liliuokalani, that we are closer to meeting today. I am optimistic about bringing the bill to the Senate floor this year."
If enacted into law in its current form, the Act would:
Establish the U.S. Office for Native Hawaiian Relations within the Office of the Secretary of the Interior.
Establish the Native Hawaiian Interagency Coordinating Group.
Recognize the right of the Native Hawaiian people to reorganize the single Native Hawaiian governing entity to provide for their common welfare and to adopt appropriate organic governing documents.
Establish a Commission to: (1) prepare and maintain a roll of the adult members of the Native Hawaiian community who elect to participate in such reorganization; and (2) certify that the adult members of the Native Hawaiian community proposed for inclusion on the roll meet the definition of Native Hawaiian.
Outline the process for the reorganization, which includes forming a Native Hawaiian Interim Governing Council.
Reaffirm the special political and legal relationship between the United States and the Native Hawaiian governing entity upon certification required by the Secretary regarding the organic governing documents and the election of the entity's officers.
Extend federal recognition to the governing entity as the representative governing body of the Native Hawaiian people.
Authorize the United States, upon the reaffirmation of such political and legal relationship, together with the state of Hawaii, to enter into negotiations with the governing entity to lead to an agreement addressing specified matters, including the transfer of lands, natural resources, and other assets, and the protection of existing rights related to such lands or resources.
Opposition to the bill has arisen from numerous quarters. Hawaii’s Governor Linda Lingle has withdrawn her previous support and stated: “This structure will, in my opinion, promote divisiveness and litigation rather than negotiation and resolution.” During a Congressional hearing in 2009, U.S. Civil Rights Commission member Gail Heriot asked Congress: "If ethnic Hawaiians can be accorded tribal status, why not Chicanos in the Southwest? Or Cajuns in Louisiana?"
Linda Lingle needs to study her American and Hawaiian history. Chicanos and Cajuns are not indigenous and the land did not "belong" to them. America was the land of the first people and Hawaii was the land of the native or indigenous Hawaiian. Chicanos are people of all or partial European descent and Cajuns are of French descent. Both are not indigenous but immigrants from another country. Maybe she wants the Irish in Boston or the Italians in New York to be afforded tribal status. Plus, Hawaii was illegally taken from the Hawaiian people by the Americans.
LISTEN UP NATIVE AMERICANS!!! THERE IS HOPE!!! THE
"AUSTRALIA HIGH COURT" RULED in the "Mabo case, the Court found that
there was a concept of native title at common law &enabled some
Aboriginal peoples to reclaim territory appropriated under the ENGLISH
doctrine of terra nullius!!!
THE "AUSTRALIA HIGH COURT" RULED in the "Mabo case, the Court found
that there was a concept of native title at common law, that the
source of native title was the traditional connection to or occupation
of the land, that the nature and content of native title was
determined by the character of the connection or occupation under
traditional laws or customs enabled some Aboriginal peoples to reclaim
territory appropriated under the ENGLISH doctrine of terra nullius
(LAND UNOCCUPIED BY ANYONE).
In 1996, The High Court re-visited the subject of native title in
Wik. The 4-3 majority in the Wik Decision stated that native title and
pastoral leases could co-exist over the same area and that native
peoples could use land for hunting and performing sacred ceremonies
even without exercising rights of ownership.
Indigenous Australians were known to inhabit the continent and to
have unwritten legal codes, as in the case of the Aboriginal people of
the Yirrkala community.
The first decisions of the New South Wales Supreme Court betray no
sign of Terra Nullius. The decision of R v Tommy (Monitor, 26 November
1827) indicated that the native inhabitants were only subject to
English law where the incident concerned both natives and settlers.
The rationale was that Aboriginal tribal groups already operated under
their own legal systems. This position was further reinforced by the
decisions of R v Boatman or Jackass and Bulleyes (Sydney Gazette, 25
February 1832) and R v Ballard (Sydney Gazette, 23 April 1829).
The first decision of the New South Wales Supreme Court to employ
Terra Nullius was R v Murrell and Bummaree (unreported, New South
Wales Supreme Court, 11 April 1836, Burton J). Terra Nullius was not
endorsed by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council until the
decision of Cooper v Stuart in 1889, some fifty three years later.
[1]
However, it has been claimed that the concept was only brought to
prominence by its critics in the late twentieth century:
"By the time of Mabo in 1992, terra nullius was the only explanation
for the British settlement of Australia. Historians, more interested
in politics than archives, misled the legal profession into believing
that a phrase no one had heard of a few years before was the very
basis of our statehood, and Reynolds’ version of our history,
especially The Law of the Land, underpinned the Mabo judges’
decision-making." - Michael Connor in The Bulletin (Sydney),
20.8.2003: see further Connor 2005.
There is some controversy as to the meaning of the term. For example,
it is asserted that, rather than implying mere emptiness, terra
nullius can be interpreted as an absence of civilized society. The
English common law of the time allowed for the legal settlement of
"uninhabited or barbarouscountry".[citation needed] Although Australia
was clearly not unoccupied, scattered and nomadic Aboriginal groups
would have been widely perceived, through European eyes of the time,
as evidence of a barbarous country and thus no legal impediment to
settlement.
In 1971, in the controversial Gove land rights case, Justice
Blackburn ruled that Australia had beenterra nullius before European
settlement, and that there was no such thing as native title in
Australian law. Court cases in 1977, 1979, and 1982 brought by or on
behalf of Aboriginal activists challenged Australian sovereignty on
the grounds that terra nullius had been improperly applied, therefore
Aboriginal sovereignty should still be regarded as being intact. These
cases were rejected by the courts, but the Australian High Court left
the door open for a reassessment of whether the continent should be
considered "settled" or "conquered".
The concept of terra nullius became a major issue in Australian
politics when, in 1992, during an Aboriginal rights case known as
Mabo, the High Court of Australia issued a judgement which was a
direct overturning of terra nullius. In this case, the Court found
that there was a concept of native title at common law, that the
source of native title was the traditional connection to or occupation
of the land, that the nature and content of native title was
determined by the character of the connection or occupation under
traditional laws or customs and that native title could be
extinguished by the valid exercise of governmental powers provided a
clear and plain intention to do so was manifest.
In 1996, The High Court re-visited the subject of native title in
Wik. The 4-3 majority in the Wik Decision stated that native title and
pastoral leases could co-exist over the same area and that native
peoples could use land for hunting and performing sacred ceremonies
even without exercising rights of ownership. However, in the event of
any conflict between the rights and interests of pastoralists and
native title, it would be the former that would prevail.
The court's ruling in Mabo has enabled some Aboriginal peoples to
reclaim territory appropriated under the doctrine of terra nullius.
This has proven extremely controversial, as it has led to lawsuits
seeking the transfer or restoration of land ownership rights to native
groups. An estimated 3,000 further agreements have been reached in
which Aboriginal peoples have regained former lands. One very recent
example is that of a December 2004 case in which the Noonkanbah people
were recognised as the traditional owners of a 1,811 km² plot of land
in Western Australia. In the Northern Territory, 40 per cent of the
land and most of its coastline is now in the hands of Aboriginal
peoples.
The concept of terra nullius became a major issue in Australian
politics when in 1992, during an Aboriginal rights case known as Mabo,
the High Court of Australia issued a judgment which was a direct
overturning of terra nullius. In this case, the Court found that there
was a concept of native title in common law, that the source of native
title was the traditional connection to or occupation of the land,
that the nature and content of native title was determined by the
character of the connection or occupation under traditional laws or
customs and that native title could be extinguished by the valid
exercise of governmental powers provided a clear and plain intention
to do so was manifest.
In 1996, The High Court re-visited the subject of native title in
Wik. The 4-3 majority in the Wik Decision stated that native title and
pastoral leases could co-exist over the same area and that native
peoples could use land for hunting and performing sacred ceremonies
even without exercising rights of ownership. However, in the event of
any conflict between the rights and interests of pastoralists and
native title, it would be the former that would prevail.
The court's ruling in Mabo has enabled some Aboriginal peoples to
reclaim territory appropriated under the doctrine of terra nullius.
This has proven extremely controversial, as it has led to lawsuits
seeking the transfer or restoration of land ownership rights to native
groups. An estimated 3,000 further agreements have been reached in
which Aboriginal peoples have regained former lands. An example is
that of a December 2004 case in which the Noonkanbah people were
recognised as the traditional owners of a 1,811 km2 (699 sq mi) plot
of land in Western Australia. In the Northern Territory, 40 per cent
of the land and most of its coastline is now owned by Aboriginal
peoples.