Legal muscle lines up against Hawaiians on ceded lands
December 16th, 2008 by David ShapiroThe U.S. Solicitor General — representing the Bush administration — is urging the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn a Hawai'i Supreme Court decision freezing state sales of ceded lands until Hawaiian native claims are resolved.
The ceded lands are 1.2 million acres of former crown lands transferred to the state in 1959 via the Admissions Act.
The Solicitor General took issue with the Hawai'i court's reasoning that a resolution passed by Congress in 1993 apologizing for the overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy gave Native Hawaiians additional rights to the land that clouded the state's clear title.
The friend-of-the-court brief argues that the Hawai'i court misinterpreted the Apology Resolution to contradict the congressional intent that the ceded lands be used for public education, home and farm ownership and general public purposes in addition to betterment of Hawaiians.
The Solicitor General stuck to the ceded lands issue and didn't seek to more broadly restrict Hawaiian native claims, and a Supreme Court ruling along the lines suggested would leave the door open for Congress and President-elect Barack Obama to pursue reconciliation with Hawaiians via the Akaka bill.
But if justices agree that the Hawai'i Supreme Court was in error, they could put further limits on Hawaiian rights if they wish.
Native Hawaiians have sharply criticized Gov. Linda Lingle for seeking to have the U.S. Supreme Court review the ruling of the state's high court, but more than 30 other states worried about their own sovereign rights have joined the Solicitor General in filing briefs supporting the State of Hawai'i.
All of the filings and other information on the ceded lands case can be found at inversecondemnation.com.
Tags: Hawaiian rights



December 16th, 2008 at 10:30 am
The argument over whether or not the Apology Bill is “binding” or not misses the point- What it is is a confession on the part of the U.S. government. It admits to their complicity in the overthrow and the theft of the lands referred to as ceded” lands, saying they were never ceded and rather stolen- as I wrote last Wed. at http://parxnewsdaily.blogspot.com/2008/12/smoke-and-mirrors.html
December 16th, 2008 at 1:15 pm
How far back do we want to take the stealing. Didn't a victorious chief "steal" the land of the defeated chief?
Aloha,
Keahi