Ka Wai Ola - Office of Hawaiian Affairs, Volume 18, Number 4, 1 April 2001 — OHA, Constitution [ARTICLE]

OHA, Constitution

Rice v.v. Cayetano, then Arakaki, Carroll and Barrett represent a domino effect seeking the demise of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs. With all the lawsuits challenging OHA, what is needed is not a Supreme Court ruling on OHA, but a ruling on the appropriateness of constitutional applicability to OHA. Is the application of the U.S. constitution and laws to OHA appropriate? I think not. On Oct. 4, 1988, the U.S. Justice Department sent an advisory group to the U.S. State Department to the effect that the 1898 annexation of Hawai'i was not Constitutional, because it did not conform to the U.S. Constitution's acquisition of territory. Applying the U.S. Constitution to the foreign soil of

Hawai'i is questionable, and Hawai'i had treaties of perpetual peaee and amity with the U.S. Congress developed and passed the Apology Bill for the interferenee in the Hawaiian government and the seizure of its assets. The President as the executive signed the bill into law. Creating OHA as a state agency subject to the U.S. Constitution raises constitutionality questions. OHA and its beneficiaries are successors to the government and benefits of Hawai'i before the 1893 intervention and seizure. Our kupuna opposed annexation with 38,000 signatures on a petition. Their will is the true path toward "Ua mau ke ea o ka 'āina i ka pono." Buzzy Agard , delegate Native Hawaiian Convention