Reinstatement Chronology

Rein­state. To rein­stall; to reestab­lish; to place again in a for­mer state,… Black’s Law Dic­tio­nary

Where­as the King­dom of Hawai’i, hav­ing been in exile for one-hun­dred sev­en years due to an unlaw­ful over­throw of its gov­ern­ment de jure, has exer­cised per­fect right to reestab­lish its prop­er sta­tion as an inde­pen­dent nation with­in the com­mu­ni­ty of nations.
—The Pre­am­ble of the Amend­ed Hawai­ian Con­sti­tu­tion of 2000

Hawai’i was an inde­pen­dent nation that had diplo­mat­ic and com­mer­cial ties with coun­tries around the world pri­or to its unlaw­ful coup d’état in 1893 and sub­se­quent annex­a­tion by the Unit­ed States in 1898.

Hawai’i will be an inde­pen­dent nation again. Very soon.

The law­ful gov­ern­ment of Hawai’i was nev­er destroyed. It was nev­er for­mal­ly dis­solved in an offi­cial act of law.

Queen Lili’uokalani — the con­sti­tu­tion­al monarch of Hawai’i at the time of the over­throw — nev­er con­sent­ed to the occu­pa­tion of the Unit­ed States. Her sub­jects nev­er con­sent­ed to for­eign rule.

The law­ful Hawai­ian Gov­ern­ment remained in a state of exile Until March 13, 1999, when a gov­ern­ment pro tem was estab­lished in accor­dance with pub­lic inter­na­tion­al law and Hawai­ian King­dom Domes­tic Law. This re-estab­lished gov­ern­ment ful­filled the posi­tion of oblig­a­tion tak­en by the Unit­ed States of Amer­i­ca in U.S. Pub­lic Law 103 – 150.

This tem­po­rary gov­ern­ment had one pur­pose: REINSTATE THE LAWFUL KINGDOM OF HAWAI’I.

Notices were sent to over half of the worlds nations pro­claim­ing Hawai’i’s intent to rein­state its gov­ern­ment de jure.

A cit­i­zen­ship dri­ve was con­duct­ed amongst all the res­i­dents of the Hawai­ian Islands in order to iden­ti­fy a dis­tinct pop­u­la­tion. The vot­ing dis­tricts of the King­dom of Hawai’i were rein­sti­tut­ed and the eli­gi­ble vot­ers elect­ed a leg­is­la­ture on Novem­ber 6, 1999.

In March of 2000, this leg­is­la­ture amend­ed the Hawai­ian King­dom Con­sti­tu­tion that was left in sus­pen­sion for the last 107 years. The cit­i­zens rat­i­fied this amend­ed con­sti­tu­tion in a plebescite on April 29th, 2000.

With a rat­i­fied con­sti­tu­tion in place, the Gov­ern­ment of Hawaii is oper­a­tional.

The rat­i­fi­ca­tion of the Amend­ed Hawai­ian Con­sti­tu­tion of 2000, it was decid­ed, would not be done sole­ly by the Leg­is­la­ture of Hawai’i. It was agreed that the Con­sti­tu­tion would be rat­i­fied direct­ly by the cit­i­zens in a plebescite vote.

On Sat­ur­day, April 29th, the Rat­i­fi­ca­tion Vote of 2000 was held in every dis­trict of the Hawai­ian Islands. A win­ning major­i­ty needs two-thirds of the total num­ber of vot­ing dis­tricts. That would cur­rent­ly require no less than six­teen dis­tricts.

The Amend­ed Hawai­ian Con­sti­tu­tion of 2000 was passed with a major­i­ty of twen­ty dis­tricts in favor of rat­i­fi­ca­tion and four dis­tricts against.

With an approved con­sti­tu­tion, the peo­ple of the nation known as Hawai’i are now in the process of ful­fill­ing the laws with­in it. The first pri­or­i­ty was to com­plete the oth­er two branch­es of gov­ern­ment.

Appli­ca­tions to the Office of the Prime Min­is­ter were con­sid­ered. All appli­cants to the office were required to appear before a review com­mit­tee estab­lished by the leg­is­la­ture to deter­mine if they met the nec­es­sary qual­i­fi­ca­tions. One per­son emerged with the con­fi­dence of the com­mit­tee. The find­ings of the com­mit­tee were for­ward­ed to the full leg­is­la­ture.

On June 17, 2000, the leg­is­la­ture declared Hen­ry Noa the uncon­test­ed win­ner and was sworn in as the Prime Min­is­ter of the King­dom of Hawai’i. On July 23, 2000 the Prime Min­is­ter appoint­ed indi­vid­u­als to his Exec­u­tive Cab­i­net.

The imme­di­ate goal of this re-emerg­ing gov­ern­ment is to noti­fy the gen­er­al pub­lic of its intent to exer­cise its rights. To this end, sev­er­al three-day long Nation­wide Demon­stra­tions have been con­duct­ed simul­ta­ne­ous­ly on the five major Hawai­ian Islands in Octo­ber & Novem­ber of 2000 and in Jan­u­ary and March of 2001.

In May of 2001, five offi­cers of the Rein­stat­ed Hawai­ian Gov­ern­ment attend­ed the week-long Asian Devel­op­ment Bank­ing Con­fer­ence held in Hon­olu­lu. Their objec­tive was to inform the del­e­gates of the 53 mem­ber nations of the nation­al rein­state­ment process under­way in Hawai’i.

In August 2001, the nation­al leg­is­la­ture of the Rein­stat­ed Hawai­ian Nation passed the RECLAMATION NOTICE, which for­mal­ly lays claim to all land and per­son­al prop­er­ty pos­sessed by the nation pri­or to its over­throw in 1893. This res­o­lu­tion was reprint­ed in its entire­ty in the Sep­tem­ber 9, 2001 Sun­day edi­tion of the Hon­olu­lu Adver­tis­er, for­mal­ly noti­fy­ing the gen­er­al pub­lic that the Rein­stat­ed Hawai­ian Gov­ern­ment is the true and right­ful own­ers of the nation­al lands of the Hawai­ian arch­i­pel­ago.

To fur­ther demon­strate the con­se­quences of this his­toric res­o­lu­tion, a Vig­il for Jus­tice and Peace was held from Novem­ber 2 to Novem­ber 9, 2001. Six­teen sights were erect­ed on state and coun­ty prop­er­ties through­out the island chain with­out any per­mits. The vig­il was con­duct­ed peace­ably for the entire week. Since then, more vig­ils have occurred on a month­ly basis. These vig­ils have gained the atten­tion of the local media and inter­na­tion­al human rights advo­cates.

On August 31, 2003, the Rein­stat­ed Hawai­ian King­dom pub­licly pub­lished its for­mal NOTICE OF INITIATING THE TRANSITION OF POLITICAL AUTHORITY and juris­dic­tion from the Unit­ed States. Appear­ing in the news­pa­per with the largest cir­cu­la­tion in the Hawai­ian Islands, it warned that all acts of aggres­sion done against it would be con­sid­ered vio­la­tions of inter­na­tion­al law in accor­dance with the Uni­ver­sal Dec­la­ra­tion of Human Rights.

With the for­mal release of this pub­lic notice, the stage is final­ly set to exer­cise per­son­al rights reserved to our cit­i­zens as autho­rized by our gov­ern­ment.

The world will wit­ness the re-emer­gence of this sov­er­eign nation.

Justification in Law

The Truth. And its appli­ca­tions in law.

God hath made of one blood all nations of men to dwell on the earth in uni­ty and blessed­ness.
—the first line of The Dec­la­ra­tion of Rights, Both of the Peo­ple and Chiefs (1839), regard­ed as the Hawai­ian equiv­a­lent to England’s Magna Car­ta

Hawai’i was, by right and def­i­n­i­tion, an inde­pen­dent nation. To under­stand the appli­ca­tion of laws that oblig­es the U.S. and the coun­tries of the world to observe the emer­gence of Hawai­ian nation­hood, there are points in fact and points in law that must be acknowl­edged first.

Major Events in the Political History of Hawai’i

On Octo­ber 8, 1840, King Kame­hame­ha III autho­rized the Hawai­ian King­dom Con­sti­tu­tion, which described the shar­ing of gov­ern­men­tal pow­er between the monarch and the par­lia­ment. This doc­u­ment marked Hawai’i’s depar­ture from absolute monar­chism. The Con­sti­tu­tion demon­strat­ed the King’s com­mit­ment to domes­tic wel­fare and adher­ence to the law of nations.

In Jan­u­ary of 1893, before Queen Lili’uokalani could insti­tute a revised con­sti­tu­tion with more demo­c­ra­t­ic reforms (i.e., allow­ing all sub­jects the right to vote, as opposed to just male landown­ers), the law­ful gov­ern­ment of Hawai’i was over­thrown in a coup d’état devised by a group of wealthy landown­ers advo­cat­ing annex­a­tion to the Unit­ed States. They were aid­ed in this stroke of state by the U.S. for­eign min­is­ter to Hawai’i and a detach­ment of U.S. Marines.

Demand­ing rem­e­dy for this unlaw­ful act, Queen Lili’uokalani sent her for­mal let­ter of protest to U.S. Pres­i­dent Grover Cleve­land. While Cleve­land did insist on the rein­state­ment of Hawai’i’s law­ful gov­ern­ment, the annex­a­tion­ists’ friends in the U.S. Con­gress wait­ed for a pres­i­dent sym­pa­th­ic to their agen­da. They got their wish with the 1896 elec­tion of William McKin­ley.

The annex­a­tion­ists installed their gov­ern­ment de fac­to, renamed the nation the Repub­lic of Hawai’i, then con­veyed the islands to the Unit­ed States on August 12, 1898. All Hawai­ian sub­jects — both kana­ka maoli (per­sons of abo­rig­i­nal Hawai­ian ances­try) and kana­ka ‘e (those of for­eign eth­nic­i­ty) — were col­lec­tive­ly nat­u­ral­ized as U.S. nation­als on that day.

Elements of a Nation

There are four con­di­tions to qual­i­fy as a nation: Ter­ri­to­ry, Pop­u­la­tion, Sov­er­eign­ty, and Gov­ern­ment. These are accept­ed stan­dards that are artic­u­lat­ed in pub­lic inter­na­tion­al law. Before it was annexed to the Unit­ed States, the King­dom of Hawai’i ful­filled these qual­i­fi­ca­tions.

With­out a doc­u­ment from the law­ful Hawai­ian Gov­ern­ment con­sent­ing to U.S. occu­pa­tion, the ces­sion of the Hawai­ian Islands to the Unit­ed States depend­ed on the removal or obfus­ca­tion of these four con­di­tions of nation­hood.

GOVERNMENT was the first to be sus­pend­ed: the monarch was removed and the par­lia­ment emp­tied. This sep­a­rat­ed the cit­i­zen­ry from their elect­ed rep­re­sen­ta­tives and impaired their abil­i­ty to exer­cise their polit­i­cal author­i­ty — their SOVEREIGNTY. The absence of a chief exec­u­tive and a leg­isla­tive body made it pos­si­ble for the gov­ern­ment of the annex­a­tion­ists to con­vey con­trol of the islands to Amer­i­ca, there­by reclas­si­fy­ing the entire Hawai­ian POPULATION as U.S. nation­als.

It is the uncon­firmed sta­tus of the final con­di­tion — TERRITORY — that revealed the imper­fect claim the Unit­ed States has on the Hawai­ian Islands.

And it was shown for all the world to see in 1993.

The Queen’s Protest Letter and the U.S. Apology Resolution

The 1893 Protest Let­ter of Queen Lili’uokalani is an appli­ca­tion in inter­na­tion­al law. In the let­ter, she pro­claims her “protest against any and all acts done against myself and the Con­sti­tu­tion­al Gov­ern­ment of the Hawai­ian King­dom…” Fur­ther in this doc­u­ment, she demands the undo­ing of the wrong­ful actions of the Unit­ed States. Amaz­ing­ly, the guilty par­ty — the U.S. Con­gress — respond­ed to this law appli­ca­tion.

A cen­tu­ry lat­er, U.S. Sen­a­tor Daniel Aka­ka includes the Queen’s Protest Let­ter in a res­o­lu­tion he intro­duces to Con­gress. Either by acci­dent or by design, his “Apol­o­gy Res­o­lu­tion” expos­es the truth of who law­ful­ly pos­sess­es Hawai’i.

On Novem­ber 23, 1993, this joint res­o­lu­tion is signed by U.S. Pres­i­dent Bill Clin­ton. For­mal­ly known as U.S. Pub­lic Law 103 – 150, it acknowl­edges the over­throw of the King­dom of Hawai’i and apol­o­gizes to Native Hawai­ians for the Unit­ed States’ par­tic­i­pa­tion in the over­throw. A joint res­o­lu­tion adopt­ed by both hous­es of Con­gress and signed by the Pres­i­dent has the effect of a law.

And as law doc­u­ments go, this is a signed con­fes­sion. With­in its text is this admis­sion:

…the indige­nous Hawai­ian peo­ple nev­er direct­ly relin­quished their claims to their inher­ent sov­er­eign­ty as a peo­ple or over their nation­al lands to the Unit­ed States, either through their monar­chy or through a plebiscite or ref­er­en­dum;

Why would Con­gress allow such a state­ment into Unit­ed States Pub­lic Law? To dis­tin­guish its lia­bil­i­ty. The U.S. gov­ern­ment knows that it does not law­ful­ly pos­sess the Hawai­ian Islands. The gov­ern­ments of the Unit­ed States and the State of Hawai’i pre­side in the islands in the absence of the gov­ern­ment de jure. The U.S. also knows that if the law­ful gov­ern­ment does not step for­ward to answer this apol­o­gy, it can con­tin­ue to legal­ly claim domin­ion over Hawai’i.

In order to show the world that it is com­ply­ing with the prin­ci­ples of inter­na­tion­al law, the Unit­ed States was required only to offer a means of rec­on­cil­i­a­tion. But the U.S. is nei­ther oblig­ed to rebuild the law­ful gov­ern­ment nor is it respon­si­ble to show the Hawai­ian peo­ple how to do it. That is the job of the kana­ka maoli.

It was the bur­den of the kana­ka maoli to rebuild the gov­ern­ment that could answer the apol­o­gy and keep the Unit­ed States in com­pli­ance with the terms of inter­na­tion­al law. The three branch­es of gov­ern­ment were erect­ed, a dis­tinct pop­u­la­tion was iden­ti­fied, and the inher­ent sov­er­eign­ty would be restored.

This was no sim­ple task. It has tak­en four years.

Efforts toward man­i­fest­ing this author­i­ty began on June 8, 1996.

Manifestation of Authority

Build­ing a nation. One step at a time.

Proof can be had from the works on the nat­ur­al law that lib­er­ty and inde­pen­dence belong to man by his very nature, and that they can not be tak­en from him with­out his consent…But the whole body of the Nation, the State, so long as it has not vol­un­tar­i­ly sub­mit­ted to oth­er men or oth­er Nations, remains absolute­ly free and inde­pen­dent.
—The Law of Nations (1758)

Hav­ing learned the hid­den sig­nif­i­cance of the U.S. Apol­o­gy Res­o­lu­tion, KAONA — an affil­i­a­tion of pri­vate cit­i­zens ded­i­cat­ed to teach­ing all laws rel­e­vant to nation­hood — was cre­at­ed in June of 1996. Its pri­ma­ry goal was to edu­cate the pub­lic to a process described in pub­lic inter­na­tion­al law used to restore nations which have suf­fered from for­eign inva­sion and con­quest.

The mem­bers of KAONA gave pre­sen­ta­tions in every dis­trict of Hawai’i. The process they advo­cat­ed was described in The Law of Nations, a text on inter­na­tion­al jurispru­dence. This book was used by the framers of the Amer­i­can Con­sti­tu­tion dur­ing its com­po­si­tion. The mis­sion­ary William Richards taught the law of nations to King Kame­hame­ha the Third in 1839. KAONA would teach these laws to all who attend­ed their pre­sen­ta­tions.

Fore­most among these prin­ci­ples was that all nations — like peo­ple — enjoy and exer­cise rights, and are bound to observe the oblig­a­tions cor­re­spond­ing to such rights. Specif­i­cal­ly, a nation has an oblig­a­tion to pre­serve and per­fect its own exis­tence and must exer­cise rights to that end. In order to revive the author­i­ty that lay sus­pend­ed for more than a cen­tu­ry, the descen­dants of the founders of the King­dom of Hawai’i had to reclaim the prop­er sta­tus of nation­hood.

Indi­vid­ual kana­ka maoli came from every island to par­tic­i­pate in a series of con­ven­tions ded­i­cat­ed to rais­ing a gov­ern­ment iden­ti­cal to the one over­thrown. It was hoped that enough peo­ple would vol­un­teer to tem­porar­i­ly occu­py the high offices of the leg­isla­tive, exec­u­tive and judi­cial branch­es.

This would accom­plish two objec­tives: con­firm the sta­tus of being the prop­er claimant to nation­hood, and lay the ground­work to nat­u­ral­ize all those who were will­ing to become cit­i­zens.

Reviving the GOVERNMENT

On March 13, 1999, del­e­gates rep­re­sent­ing all twen­ty-four dis­tricts of the King­dom of Hawai’i attend­ed a con­ven­tion in Punalu’u, a com­mu­ni­ty on the north­ern side of the island of O’ahu. Twen­ty-four kana­ka maoli vol­un­teered to serve as their dis­tricts’ rep­re­sen­ta­tives in the House of Rep­re­sen­ta­tives pro tem. Anoth­er twen­ty-four vol­un­teered to serve in the House of Nobles pro tem, com­plet­ing the bicam­er­al par­lia­ment of the Hawai­ian gov­ern­ment.

In accor­dance with the Hawai­ian King­dom Con­sti­tu­tion, this leg­is­la­ture elect­ed a monarch pro tem who, in turn, appoint­ed indi­vid­u­als to the Exec­u­tive Cab­i­net pro tem and the Supreme Court pro tem.

With this tem­po­rary gov­ern­ment of vol­un­teers in place, these fifty-six offi­cers for­mal­ly agreed to not exer­cise any of the pow­ers of their offices. Their sole respon­si­bil­i­ty was to sign up all those res­i­dents of Hawai’i who were will­ing to aban­don their cur­rent nation­al­i­ty and become cit­i­zens of the King­dom of Hawai’i.

Identifying the POPULATION

Anoth­er law prin­ci­ple states that cit­i­zen­ship is based on alle­giance, not race. Hawai’i is a land of many eth­nic­i­ties. The pro tem gov­ern­ment decid­ed that the offer to become a cit­i­zen would be extend­ed not only to kana­ka maoli, but also to Hawai­ians (all those res­i­dents born in Hawai’i not of abo­rig­i­nal Hawai­ian ances­try) and to for­eign­ers (all those res­i­dents born else­where not of abo­rig­i­nal Hawai­ian ances­try).

Through­out the year, the pro tem offi­cers con­duct­ed a pub­lic­i­ty cam­paign for this rein­state­ment ini­tia­tive. Ads were placed in the clas­si­fied and pub­lic notice sec­tions of each island’s news­pa­pers. Infor­ma­tion­al pam­phlets with con­tact num­bers were dis­trib­uted to the gen­er­al pop­u­lace. Two or three times a week, the pro tem offi­cers and oth­er vol­un­teers waved signs at busy inter­sec­tions in their home towns dur­ing peak traf­fic times.

Reg­is­tra­tion booths were set up in pub­lic places so that all who were ready to com­mit could apply to this process. Since they had the inher­ent right to return to their nation, the kana­ka maoli who signed up com­plet­ed Appli­ca­tions of Repa­tri­a­tion. Those Hawai­ians and for­eign­ers who chose to com­mit their loy­al­ty to this process com­plet­ed Appli­ca­tions of

Nat­u­ral­iza­tion. Copies of these appli­ca­tions were then sent to U.S. Sec­re­tary of State Madeleine Albright.

The eli­gi­ble vot­ers result­ing from this cit­i­zen­ship dri­ve were qual­i­fied to cast bal­lots in the first par­lia­men­tary elec­tion of the King­dom of Hawai’i in over a cen­tu­ry. Affi­davits of Can­di­da­cy to the Office of Rep­re­sen­ta­tive or the Office of Noble were made avail­able to all those who were inter­est­ed in serv­ing as a leg­is­la­tor. The dead­line to par­tic­i­pate in this elec­tion as a vot­er and/or a can­di­date was Sat­ur­day, Octo­ber 30, 1999.

Exercising the SOVEREIGNTY

On Sat­ur­day, Novem­ber 6, 1999, all twen­ty-four vot­ing dis­tricts select­ed the indi­vid­ual they want­ed to serve them in the House of Rep­re­sen­ta­tives. The vot­ers of each island also select­ed those indi­vid­u­als who would serve them in the at-large seats of the House of Nobles. The elec­tion of these forty-eight leg­is­la­tors marked the return of the leg­isla­tive branch of the true and right­ful gov­ern­ment of Hawai’i.

Among the res­o­lu­tions passed by the tem­po­rary gov­ern­ment was the sus­pen­sion of the offices of the exec­u­tive and judi­cial branch­es upon the eve of the par­lia­men­tary elec­tion. Unlike the March 13th con­ven­tion, the elect­ed leg­is­la­ture would not imme­di­ate­ly rein­state the exec­u­tive branch by installing a monarch. It became their duty to deter­mine what form of gov­ern­ment the cit­i­zens want­ed: con­sti­tu­tion­al monar­chy or par­lia­men­tary democ­ra­cy.

The leg­is­la­tors’ and cit­i­zens’ pri­ma­ry respon­si­bil­i­ty was to address this con­cern by updat­ing the Hawai­ian King­dom Con­sti­tu­tion for the first time in 113 years.

Gov­ern­ment De Jure

Pre­served in law by our ances­tors.

Per­fect­ing itself for our descen­dents.

Where­as the King­dom of Hawai’i, hav­ing been in exile for one-hun­dred sev­en years due to an unlaw­ful over­throw of its gov­ern­ment de jure, has exer­cised per­fect right to reestab­lish its prop­er sta­tion as an inde­pen­dent nation with­in the com­mu­ni­ty of nations.
—The Pre­am­ble of the Hawai­ian Con­sti­tu­tion of 2000

Revising the Constitution

On Jan­u­ary 15, 2000, the elect­ed leg­is­la­ture of the King­dom of Hawai’i con­vened for the first time in 107 years in Ana­ho­la, a com­mu­ni­ty on the island of Kaua’i. The leg­is­la­tors of the tem­po­rary gov­ern­ment vacat­ed their offices and wit­nessed the swear­ing-in of their elect­ed suc­ces­sors.

The objec­tive of this con­ven­tion was to retrieve the nation’s con­sti­tu­tion from sus­pen­sion and update it for the twen­ty-first cen­tu­ry. Last amend­ed in 1887, the Hawai­ian King­dom Con­sti­tu­tion con­sist­ed of eighty-two arti­cles which described the func­tions and pow­ers of the monarch, the par­lia­ment and the courts of record; as well as the nat­ur­al, polit­i­cal and civ­il laws enjoyed by the cit­i­zen­ry. Con­sol­i­dat­ing the 82 arti­cles into ten arti­cles of relat­ed sub­ject mat­ter, a draft con­sti­tu­tion was adopt­ed. The leg­is­la­tors were respon­si­ble for dis­trib­ut­ing copies of the draft to the cit­i­zens for their review and input. Before recess­ing, the leg­is­la­ture agreed to recon­vene at a con­sti­tu­tion­al con­ven­tion on March 10, 11 & 12, 2000 in Waimea, a town on the big island of Hawai’i.

In prepar­ing for this con­sti­tu­tion­al con­ven­tion, a pro­to­col was fol­lowed that allowed the indi­vid­ual cit­i­zen to sub­mit draft leg­is­la­tion for con­sid­er­a­tion at three suc­ces­sive lev­els: first, review with­in the dis­trict; then, review amongst all dis­tricts of the island; and final­ly, review by the entire leg­is­la­ture. A dead­line for sub­mit­ting amend­ments was set, copies of the amend­ments from those islands that met the dead­line were made, and each leg­is­la­tor received their copies upon arriv­ing at the con­ven­tion.

The leg­is­la­ture spent the entire con­ven­tion exam­in­ing and re-exam­in­ing the draft con­sti­tu­tion and every sub­mit­ted amend­ment. After much debate, a con­sti­tu­tion with lan­guage sat­is­fac­to­ry to the leg­is­la­ture was agreed upon. Among the fea­tures intro­duced into the con­sti­tu­tion were:

  • Mak­ing the Office of the Monarch cer­e­mo­ni­al, with the monarch serv­ing as a nation­al sym­bol
  • Estab­lish­ing an Office of the Prime Min­is­ter
  • Allow­ing the cit­i­zens — rather than the leg­is­la­ture — to elect the Prime Min­is­ter
  • Insert­ing direct democ­ra­cy into the leg­isla­tive pro­ce­dure of pass­ing laws of the land
  • Extend­ing the right to vote to women
  • Extend­ing the right to vote to indi­vid­ual cit­i­zens who are not landown­ers
  • Remov­ing the monarch’s Privy Coun­cil, but retain­ing the Exec­u­tive Cab­i­net Min­is­ters
  • Reserv­ing the right to retrieve the Kingdom’s pub­lic laws placed into sus­pen­sion 107 years ago
  • For­mal­ly nam­ing the leg­is­la­ture the Mana Kau Kanawai (“the body empow­ered to make laws”)
  • Refer­ring to the nation as “Hawai’i”
  • Reserv­ing the abil­i­ty to intro­duce and rat­i­fy addi­tion­al amend­ments to the con­sti­tu­tion

Copies of this final draft were sup­plied to each leg­is­la­tor for dis­tri­b­u­tion to the cit­i­zens. The rat­i­fi­ca­tion of this con­sti­tu­tion would not be done sole­ly by the Leg­is­la­ture. It was agreed that the Amend­ed Hawai­ian Con­sti­tu­tion of 2000 would be rat­i­fied by the cit­i­zens in a plebescite vote.

On Sat­ur­day, April 29th, the Rat­i­fi­ca­tion Vote of 2000 was held in every dis­trict of the Hawai­ian Islands.

A win­ning major­i­ty needs two-thirds of the total num­ber of vot­ing dis­tricts. That would cur­rent­ly require no less than six­teen dis­tricts.

The Amend­ed Hawai­ian Con­sti­tu­tion of 2000 was passed with a major­i­ty of twen­ty dis­tricts in favor of rat­i­fi­ca­tion and four dis­tricts against.

With an approved con­sti­tu­tion, the peo­ple of the nation known as Hawai’i are now in the process of ful­fill­ing the laws with­in it. The first pri­or­i­ty was to com­plete the oth­er two branch­es of gov­ern­ment.

Appli­ca­tions to the Office of the Prime Min­is­ter were con­sid­ered. All appli­cants to the office were required to appear before a review com­mit­tee estab­lished by the leg­is­la­ture to deter­mine if they met the nec­es­sary qual­i­fi­ca­tions. One per­son emerged with the con­fi­dence of the com­mit­tee. The find­ings of the com­mit­tee were for­ward­ed to the full leg­is­la­ture.

On June 17, 2000, the leg­is­la­ture declared the uncon­test­ed win­ner and sworn him in as the Prime Min­is­ter of the King­dom of Hawai’i. On July 23, 2000 the Prime Min­is­ter appoint­ed indi­vid­u­als to his Exec­u­tive Cab­i­net.

The process of ful­fill­ing the laws of the Hawai­ian Con­sti­tu­tion con­tin­ues.

  • Email updates

    Join the mailing list and stay up to date via email.





    Privacy Policy