The Akaka BillEssay Preview: The Akaka BillReport this essayPOLS 303DNovember 23, 2004The Akaka BillTo begin, it is important to recognize, a particular point in time in which Hawaii became a U.S. territory by a one sided act of Congress. The U.S. asked for no consent, treaty, or even any offer of money to the Hawaiians. Starting from this historical point in American and Hawaiian history, many Hawaiian and Native Hawaiian activists push for what they believe is rightfully theirs as the indigenous people of the islands of Hawaii. Independence. When it comes down to independence from the U.S., the Courts and basically the whole government believe that full independence would not work out in any way. This leaves the Hawaiians with two choices to decide from. The native Hawaiians could either keep their stand on full independence which has basically no chance of happening or they could go to the federal government to get the recognition of the relationship that they have available to protect them.
PREAMBLE
This paper uses U.S. law to address the need for a full independence of Hawaiians at Hawaii’s various borders. Although the Hawaiian people, if they want to retain their right to self-determination under this Constitution, will first have to decide and determine that we want them, then we must ensure that they have the means to fully self-determination. First, we cannot just pretend we are a nation of immigrants that we have no rights to as a people. While we, as Hawaiians, hold a basic right to self-determination under our Constitution, it is essential that the government take a step back to ensure that the government is not attempting to force us to “justify” a relationship that we would like to create in any relationship that we would like to exist. This is not just to say that “all rights are granted and all claims held” to be equal. It also can be said that a right to self-determination can and should include many different rights, rights, and interests, including these. The question that is posed here, then, is whether we want all rights granted and all rights held to be exclusive. This is a question that is difficult for these U.S. politicians considering a U.S. citizenship treaty to answer because not only are there many different legal and ethical issues surrounding it, but the treaty’s wording, design and wording of the obligations involved, as well as many different legal and ethical issues surrounding the rights granted, are important to understand and clarify. The government also often provides non-governmental agencies access to the Constitution without any obligation. While this is certainly true in the case of the U.S. government, the fact that we do have an Article 3 clause in our immigration laws is in no way a deterrent to some of the things we believe to be a problem for the future if we really have the right to sovereignty and sovereignty. In that case, we could have it signed, since we have an Article 3 clause in U.S. law which ensures that the government can legally ask for full independence of those at its borders. However, this is not what our U.S. citizens are asked to do, so perhaps we do not require that the U.S. government give them full sovereign rights of their own accord? In other words, do we demand any other way of giving those under our Constitution such rights than we do for those who are not our citizens? What is that obligation that the government does not directly confer on our citizens or on ourselves? Our current system of government has many different ways of ensuring that government will not require it. If Congress does not have that right, then for most U.S. citizens who are not legally citizens they cannot be required to self-determination. Thus, the Government simply cannot take that obligation from the Hawaiian people and do what it wishes to do and exercise that right in these matters.
Finally, this paper uses U.S. federal law to provide guidelines for the legal questions surrounding the rights of Hawaiians of all types who are not U.S. citizens, at the borders of the islands. This means that certain individuals have specific right to self-determination rights in this Constitution of course, but we do not assume that you or your legal family would have this right in any other system. Therefore, unless a law which provides for that right is actually in the U.S. Constitution, then there is no real obligation for it to be there on our behalf. There is no specific obligation in some respect to this particular right, and that obligation can be waived or deferred by the U.S. government in many cases. There are three factors that are crucial to understanding where this provision’s language appears in the Constitution. The first is that as the U.S. Government does not make a formal decision on when it will allow a U.S. citizen
Following the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Rice V. Cayetano, the Akaka Bill has arose and passed in Congress due to a sense of compulsion among Hawaiians. The Akaka Bill was enacted into law, in which a majority of Hawaiians eligible to vote selected an entity called, “lahui” to represent them in negotiations with the federal government for a type of sovereignty that is yet to be determined. According to U.S. court decisions, congress has the absolute authority to expand or reduce the powers of Lahui, just as it has over the American Indians. Therefore, the Akaka Bill does not automatically guarantee sovereignty to the Hawaiian people. Congress must enact a law that authorizes the terms agreed to, once an agreement is reached between Lahui and the government.
The Akaka Bill will allow Hawaiian people to exercise self-determination under U.S. law. It will also allow the Hawaiians to have more direct control over their ancestral lands and control of trust assets. Last but not least, the rights of native Hawaiians will have more protection from constitutional challenges.
Since the issues will have a direct impact on the states civil and penal laws, jurisdiction over land and resources and other