What EXACTLY Can Only Be Achieved Through A Constitutional Convention?

[Rick M.]

We're hearing lots of vague ideas but very few actual proposals. Leaving aside, for the moment, that we can amend the State Constitution any time we want without the need of a Constitutional Convention, let's look at the actual changes we want to see if we get a ConCon.

So rather than "Improve Education" say something specific like:

"Insert paragraph giving each family a school voucher for each child which can be used at the school of their choice (public or private). Each child's voucher shall be equal to the amount of the DOE yearly budget divided by the number of school-age students in the state."

Let's not discuss the pros and cons - let's just list the things we ABSOLUTELY NEED a constitutional convention for:

I'll start it off:

1. Delete Article XII Hawaiian Affairs

2. Rewrite ARTICLE XI Section 7 Water Resources to give water ownership to the landowner and to remove the governmental interference in how the water is used.

3. Delete ARTICLE XI Section 8 Nuclear Energy (ban)

4. Add a section to Article XIII (Collective Bargaining) saying, "No employee shall be required to pay dues to a union as a condition of employment"

5. Delete the second paragraph of Article XIII (Collective Bargaining) to eliminate the right of government employees to unionize.

[Keanu]

She is no more naive than you with your ridiculous proposals that wouldn't even be discussion items if a Con Con were convened.

Thus far, the only sound amendment proposal is Initiative, Referendum, and Recall.

[kawehi]

Aloha E Emil,

A constitution in general applies to, "The Law of The Land" and on this land that constitution if the 1864 Hawai'i constitution...not the 1978 constitution that was written by the ipso facto government..."here factually, not here legally" speaks to the purported, State of Hawai'i. It is important that foreigners understand the laws that matter in order to make sound decisions. See website: "hawaiiankingdom.org" for all the facts.

You are a good example of the kind of people who live in Hawai'i and think this is America. If you understand "constitution" coming from your country...where ever that is...your government certainly did not fit your idea of freedom. The same is here for us. Our families go back 97 generations and we know the laws of this land is the last legal constitution passed in 1864. Just because "America" claims that we are Americans...doesn't make it so. As you have come from a communist country and ran to America, know...that this place called Hawai'i is not America...we are an independent constitutional government, therefore this discussion on the concon is just that...a con job. You may be better off going back to America...selling everything and finding a place in America to hide out in before the veil is lifted leaving you disappointed, down and out.

Aloha Oe,
Kawehi.

[Keanu]

Actually Mr. Kuroiwa, if you wish to refute Kawehi's points, the burden of disproof is on you.

The United States Congress side-stepped its own Constitution when it passed the Newlands Resolution. I challenge you to find an article within the context of the United States Constitution that would allow Congress to annex a foreign territory by a mere resolution. A joint resolution of Congress has no legal standing in a foreign country, which is what Hawai'i remained, even under the provisional government.

Congress has the power to admit new states, which it did when it annexed Texas in 1845. However, Hawai'i was not being acquired as a state, therefore, the method of annexing Texas did not constitute a proper precedent for the annexation of Hawai'i, which was retained as a U.S. possession.

[Kaunaloa]

"I challenge you to find an article within the context of the United States Constitution that would allow Congress to annex a foreign territory by a mere resolution."

well, there is
"New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union"
and
"The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States"
both from article 4 of the u.s. constitution ...

[Keanu]

Yes Kaunaloa but Hawai'i was not a territory of the United States when Congress passed the Newlands Resolution; Hawai'i was still an independent nation at that time..Furthermore, Hawai'i was annexed to be retained as a possession of the United States, not admitted as a new state. Therefore, what constitutional power did Congress exercise when it acquired Hawaii by joint resolution?

[Rick M.]

Well, we'll see. If the environmentalists, hippy-dippies and Hawaiian soveignty guys think they outnumber the rest of us, they can dream on.

Face reality. This is America. Americans outnumber those of you living in the past.

[Rick M.]

According to Jimmy K. this is how you guys did it in 1978. By allowing people the option of voting yes or no on the whole package (instead of forging on ahead to consider each amendment separately) that accomplished the same purpose.

So why is what I'm proposing dishonest? How do you think all the laws get passed? You give something you get something. It isn't perfect but you put together a package that will get the votes you need to pass the part YOU want.

It is not at all dishonest. It is called compromise.

[Rick M.]

I don't get it. If you don't know what you want, why do you want a Constitutional Convention?

I really despair of the lack of homework you guys do.

Most the people here are talking about changing the constitution AND HAVE NOT EVEN READ IT!

This is what I am talking about. You'll go along with all these nebulous ideas about "improving education" and so on but all you are doing is opening the door to the hippy dippies who want to replace Math with "Teach Peace".

And re unions. I hear you about the power of the unions over working local people. But I believe there are enough like-minded people who are retired, who have not grown up with this plantation mentality (because we didn't grow up here) that we just might be able to eliminate Article XIII (allowing unions) replaced with Right to Work.

So I would urge you not to give up just because IN THE PAST we couldn't get this done. The population of Hawaii has radically shifted in the last 40 years. I think you'll be surprised what we can accomplish now that we have the votes.

[Keanu]

Actually Rick, you are the one dreaming. Perhaps you are just naive (which I believe is the case with you).

Just who are you referring to when you make reference to "us" and "we"? if you think your thoughts are the prevailing view of the electorate here, you are sadly mistaken.

[Kaunaloa]

keanu, your argument, like kawehi's, essentially rests upon magically "de-legitimizing" every political action after 1864. no matter how much you and others "wish" that to be so, it's simply not. Once Hawai'i was annexed it became subject to the 2nd sentence I quoted. ~1/2 a century later, again by congressional action related to the 1st sentence I quoted, Hawai'i became a state within the Union. the preamble of the current state constitution recognizes the adoption of the U.S. constitution. it is, frankly, pointless and counterproductive to even bring up the "legitimacy" of Hawai'i being a state; such vastly off-topic discussions do nothing to forward the discussion of the goodness of a ConCon.

[Keanu]

Kaunaloa, I don't believe I made any reference to the 1864 Constitution of the Kingdom of Hawaii. I merely pointed out the fact that the Newlands Resolution was invalid under the U.S. Constitution. The Admissions Act simply built upon illegal grounds starting with the Newlands Resolution; the U.S. could not admit into its union territory it had never properly held.

I know it's easier to sweep the issue under the rug than to face the reality that those like Kawehi may actually have a point. While I concur that such discussion is off-topic, I believe it has a place here considering the proposals put forth by the person who started this thread.

[Keanu]

Mr. Kuroiwa, Congress can pass any bill or resolution it wants but that legislative act is necessarily confined in its operation to the territory of the United States. Hawai'i was an independent nation when Congress passed the Newlands Resolution. If Congress passed a resolution to annex Canada and that resolution was signed by the President, would Canada automatically become a territory of the United States?

Btw, I wouldn't expect the Supreme Court to rule against its own government.

I will share more as time permits.