- Joined
- Apr 15, 2014
- Messages
- 14,495
- Reaction score
- 3,138
President Barack Obama
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.
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?
The proposed new legal regime for Hawaii is sketched in a federal document released Friday, dubbed an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Difference being many want to preserve their culture through annihilation of other cultures.LOL well played but Watch out the PC police will shoot you down.