Greetings!
Just mentioning the islands of Hawaii will elicit in most people at least a fleeting moment of yearning to trade in our present-day cares for a day on its beaches, drinking something with an umbrella in it. Hawaii has always been a coveted spot on the map, and therefore has caused no small stir in its territorial history.
In 1893 industrial powers siezed the land from the Native Hawaiian monarchy, with the goal of annexing the islands to the United States, which was accomplished in 1898. It took many more years for Hawaii to became a state. However, the people of Hawaii knew their rights, and demanded that their public lands be transferred to the state, as was similarly promised to every other state in the union for lands that were not readily sold. The Hawaiians won this battle because they were mobilized, refused to be silent, and refused to take "NO" for an answer! The enabling act for the state of Hawaii, ratified on March 18, 1959 reads, "...the United States grants to the State of Hawaii, effective upon its admission into the Union, the United States' title to all the public lands and other public property within the boundaries of the State of Hawaii, title to which is held by the United States immediately prior to its admission into the Union." It's been done before! In 1993, more than 30 years after Congress had granted all public lands directly to the state of Hawaii, U.S. Senator Daniel Inouye passed an Apology Resolution. The Resolution acknowledged that the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii occurred with the participation of agents and citizens of the U.S., and also acknowledged that the Native Hawaiians never directly relinquished to the U.S. their claims to their inherent sovereignty over their public lands. Based on this subsequent, unilateral act of Congress, the Native Hawaiians claimed lien rights over lands that superseded the express terms of Hawaii's Enabling Act. The case eventually went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court and, interestingly, got a unanimous decision, declaring that Congress doesn't have the authority to unilaterally alter or change the terms of a state's admission through its enabling act. Why? Because "'[T]he consequences of admission are instantaneous, and it ignores the uniquely sovereign character of that event...to suggest that subsequent [acts of Congress] somehow can diminish what has already been bestowed.' And that proposition applies a fortiori [with even greater force] where virtually all of the State's public lands...are at stake." (2009 U.S. Supreme Court Hawaii v. Office of Hawaiian Affairs) The promises made in a state's enabling act CANNOT be changed by subsequent acts of Congress. Which begs the question, WHY did the federal government think that they could enact a unilateral policy in 1976 and retain all remaining public lands in federal ownership, rather than disposing of them as every state's enabling act specifies? (FLPMA 1976)  (Current federal lands in Hawaii)
|
