Kauai reminds me of the decades I spent living on an Indian reservation. Tribal politics remind me a lot of the politics on Kauai. The most powerful Indian families competed to control the tribal senate and thus tribal government and the monies that said government controlled. We are talking sizable amounts of other peoples money. Once in control of the government as we have seen on Kauai there are many ways to siphon money and perks.
On the reservation I lived on one family has controlled the tribal government for most of the last 50 years. They have maintained that control by patronage, payola and when that has not worked with violence. I can tell you that a frozen turkey around the holidays (and elections) for some households was all it took to secure votes. This family has parlayed their control of their tribe to become one of the wealthiest families in the State in which they reside.
There is very little accountability on reservations. The Feds mainly look the other way and the Indian Civil RIghts act actually permits things that would be illegal off the reservation. By the way I can't imagine that if it comes into creation that the Akaka tribe would behave any differently.
Here on Kauai it seems we have a similar situation. He or she who controls Kauai government, or a part thereof, gets to enrich themselves and their clan at the general taxpayer's expense. You know the way they always have. To date the citizen voters have been complicit in this by voting the same folks or their cronies back into office. That needs to change.
Tuesday, November 20, 2012
Monday, November 12, 2012
HIGH COURT EMASCULATES APOLOGY RESOLUTION
3/31/2009 U.S. Supreme Court in Hawaii v. OHA, 129 S.Ct. 1436,1439-1444 (2009) reversed the Hawaii Supreme Court’s injunction against sale or transfer of any ceded lands until claims of native Hawaiians against ceded lands are resolved. Decision by Justice Alito for unanimous Court holds :
Operative clauses of 1993 Congressional Apology Resolution created no substantive rights;
State Supreme Court’s conclusion (that the Apologu Resolution’s 37 “whereas” clauses clearly recognize native Hawaiians’ “unrelinquished” claims over the ceded lands) is wrong. The 37 “whereas” clauses would “raise grave constitutional concerns ” if they purported to cloud the State of Hawaii’s absolute title to the ceded lands.
Pursuant to Newlands Resolution (1898) Republic of Hawaii ceded and transferred to U.S. “absolute fee and ownership” of all public, Government and Crown lands “without reserve.” In 1900 Organic Act reiterated that U.S. acquired absolute fee, and declared that on effective date of Newlands Resolution, and prior thereto, the Crown lands were property of the Hawaiian government “free and clear from any trust of or concerning the same, and from all claim of any nature whatsoever. ”
The State of Hawaii in its brief had argued that the Newlands Resollution (1898) and Organic Act (1900) “extinguished” and “foreclose” any Native Hawaiian or other claims over the ceded lands that preexist the date of annexation. ”For decades after Hawaii was admitted to the Union, the State had undisputed authority to dispose of the ceded lands as it deemed appropriate so long as it satisfied its “public trust” obligations, which run to all the citizens of Hawaii, not just to Native Hawaiians.”
This landmark unanimous decision of the highest court has now finally adjudicated this major issue. Native Hawaiians have no claim over the ceded lands arising out of events before Annexation in 1898. The ceded lands are held by the State of Hawaii in trust for all the people of Hawaii, including but not limited to Native Hawaiians.
Friday, November 9, 2012
Thursday, November 8, 2012
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)