Discussion in 'The War Room' started by second sight, May 27, 2014.
President Barack Obama
Assuming the article in the OP is not sensationalist , it looks like Native Hawaiians might get to benefit from similar special standing as that of Native American reservations.
I just don't see how this is a good idea and as the OP points out, where is the legal standing to dictate state government in this manner?
Well he's posting from the Daily Caller so I'd assume a lot is being left out. That said, I'd assume that any argument about state governments would be similar to how Native American tribes interact with such.
Obama, in theory, should be known to future generations as a pioneer in the enforcement of equality, being the first ethnically diverse president. However, this administration will be remembered as more divisive than anything. That's how I see it.
The Caller article seems sourced pretty well (hard to read government documents)
It seems to be all about letting native Hawaiins (I always thought they were Americans) get some nice tax breaks and a casino.
The disturbing part is that once again Obama will pick winners and losers through executive fiat rather than legislation.
I wish he would wave his magic wand and throw some money on me.
I never paid attention really, aren't the stipulations surrounding Native Americans outlined Constitutionally? Since it would be a law enacted based on race we're all pretty sure that doesn't fly. I don't think the case of lumping Hawaiians in with NA's is a good one because they are different and not what was meant as written. Hearing the full argument might be wise here.
For those of us from other countries, what IS the USA's deal with Hawaii? Are they a full state which has equal standing, or more similar to a native territory?
I am all for Native Hawaiians enjoying the same soverign status of Native Americans. Both are native to their respective lands, so if Native Americans can have reservations and some level of independence from the US government then why shouldn't Native Hawaiians.
Hawaii is a state. Puerto Rico and Guam etc are territories.
The proposed new legal regime for Hawaii is sketched in a federal document released Friday, dubbed an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
Because they are all currently American citizens and not citizens of some tribe that has treaties with the USA. As far as I know. This would be the most screwed up idea our president has if true. The precedent would be very dumb and damaging.
Full state but only attained Statehood in 1959. Unlike Peurto Rico and Guam which are US territories but do not have Statehood.
All Native Amerians are citizens of the USA also. Giving them as many rights as Native Americans enjoy will help Native Hawaiians better preserve their culture and give them more power over matters that affect them.
Did they sign a treaty giving them special privileges when they became a state though? If not what principle is used to justify this? Racial politics is so dangerous.
Personally I'm against racist law and believe creating tribalism is bad. If I can't do it then they can't either. Lots of people's families were around before their states voted for (possibly in spite of some being against) entry into a seemingly unbreakable contract. Only one group (based on genetics) gets to turn back the clock on the agreement?
We all want our cultures preserved the way we want them. Just ask the Klan.
LOL well played but Watch out the PC police will shoot you down.
Getting the impression misleading thread title is misleading.
If it simply sets up a situation where native Hawaiians get the same benefits as Native Americans I am fine with that.
Difference being many want to preserve their culture through annihilation of other cultures.
Separate names with a comma.