COMMENTS
(3)
You must be subscribed to participate in discussions
By participating in online discussions you acknowledge that you have agreed to the TERMS OF SERVICE. An insightful discussion of ideas and viewpoints is encouraged, but comments must be civil and in good taste, with no personal attacks. Because only subscribers are allowed to comment, we have your personal information and are able to contact you. If your comments are inappropriate, you may be banned from posting. To report comments that you believe do not follow our guidelines, email commentfeedback@staradvertiser.com.
Leave a comment
manakuke wrote:
Special sacred places must be respected.
on April 9,2015 | 03:49AM
Mythman wrote:
Actually, it's not all that complex: it is a simple, straightforward legal question at most, the rest is added on. Whatever one wants to label it, the land use issue involves the real fact that the folks "protesting" are descendants of Hawaiians who used to own the Mauna Kea land and all the land making up the present state of Hawaii. That ownership is recognized in federal law as they had what is known as "Indian land title" - that is, they had a kind of deed even if it was not recorded at the Bureau of Conveyances. This deed is acknowledged by the US. However, in Hawaii, alone among all the states now, this deed is only symbolically respected, not actually considered in land disputes. Now this is interesting: the way this happened turns out pursuant to Rice and other precedents to have been unconstitutional. As such it is reversible, leaving the issues actually undetermined as such. The claim of the "protestors" cannot be properly represented by the OHA as it is a state agency set up to neuter all such claims in protection of the royal land trusts/the state/the public.
on April 9,2015 | 04:22AM
Mythman wrote:
Oops, turns out to be UNconstitional, not constitutional, sorry for the confusion....
on April 9,2015 | 04:24AM
No comments:
Post a Comment