U.S. President Cleveland Gave Hawaii Back to Queen Liliuokalani Twice(2x), With Legal and Researched Information Showing The Existence of the Kingdom of Hawaii
- Permalink Reply by on
- Permalink Reply by on
- Permalink Reply by on
Allen et al. vs. Scalia
Let us pretend that Scalia was on the floor of the U.S. Senate in the summer of 1898. Sen. William V. Allen of Nebraska and others would have reminded him that a joint resolution is only an act of Congress. It has no power to reach out and acquire foreign territory or a foreign country.“A joint resolution if passed becomes a statute law. It has no other or greater force. It is the same as if it were entitled ‘an act.’ That is its legal classification,” said Allen. “It is therefore impossible for the government of the United States to reach across its boundaries into the dominion of another government and annex that government or the persons or property therein.“But the United States may do so under the treaty making power, which I shall hereafter consider.”In addition, Allen said, “Mr. President, how can a joint resolution such as this be operative? What is the legislative jurisdiction of Congress? Does it extend over Hawaii? May we in this anticipatory manner reach out beyond the sea and assert our authority under a resolution of Congress within the confines of that independent nation? Where is our right, our grant of power, to do this? Where do we find it?“The joint resolution itself, it is admitted, amounts to nothing so far as carrying any effective force is concerned. It does not bring that country within our boundaries. It does not consummate itself.”Moreover, Sen. Thomas Turley of Tennessee stated:“It is admitted that if the Joint Resolution is adopted, the Republic of Hawaii can determine whether or not it will accept the provisions contained in the joint resolution. In other words, the adoption of the resolution does not consummate the transaction.“The Republic of Hawaii does not become a part or the territory of the United States by the adoption of the joint resolution …”Sen. John Coit Spooner of Wisconsin added his view: “Of course, our power would not be extraterritorial.”United States Library of CongressSen. A.O. Bacon, who questioned the constitutionality of the United States’ proposed annexation of Hawaii.Sen. A.O. Bacon of Georgia made the same point: “Under the law of the equal sovereignty of states, one independent and sovereign nation such as the United States cannot take another nation, such as Hawaii, by means or its own legislative act.”Bacon noted that if the United States could take Hawaii by joint resolution, it could so take Jamaica. If that were true, any nation could acquire any other. Hawaii could annex the United States. “If the President of the United States can do it in the case of Hawaii, he can with equal propriety and legality do it in the case of Jamaica …”Sen. Stephen White of California noted annexation by joint resolution was unprecedented: in American history: “… there is no instance where by a joint resolution it has been attempted not only to annex a foreign land far remote from our shores, but also to annihilate a nation, to withdraw it from the sovereign societies of the world as a government.”On the issue of the constitutionality of the use of a joint resolution, Bacon made it clear: Hawaii could only be acquired by a Treaty. “If Hawaii is to be annexed, it ought certainly to be annexed by a constitutional method; and if by a constitutional method, it cannot be annexed, no Senator ought to desire its annexation.”Finally, Bacon — one of the most senior members of the Senate — predicted that the annexation of Hawaii by joint resolution would do great damage to the Constitution and the Union.“If we pass the joint resolution, we enter upon a revolution which shall convert this country from a peaceful country into a warlike country. If we pass the resolution, we transform this country from one engaged in its own concerns into one which shall immediately proceed to intermeddle with the concerns of all the world.“If we pass the joint resolution, we inaugurate a revolution which shall convert this country from one designed for the advancement and the prosperity and the happiness of our citizens into one which shall seek its gratification in dominion and domination and foreign acquisition.”Native Hawaiians have forgotten that many Americans stood with them in 1898. After all, the Treaty of 1897, the only legal means for taking Hawaii, failed not because the Senate of the Republic of Hawaii failed to ratify the Treaty. It was the United States Senate that did not ratify the Treaty.In conclusion, the joint resolution could not acquire Hawaii. Moreover, it was unconstitutional. Justice Scalia’s comments are evidence of the pervasive and widespread falsehoods as to annexation that have spread to the highest political and judicial offices in the United States. The myth of annexation is a deliberate deception that has oppressed the people of Hawaii for 122 years.Historic quotes above are from Volume 31 of the Congressional Record pages 6142 to 6712, the verbatim record of the Senate debate in 1898.About the Author
CONTRIBUTOR
Williamson Chang
Williamson Chang is a professor of Law and member of the faculty senate at the University of Hawaii at Manoa. Professor Chang has been teaching at the University of Hawaii School of Law for 37 years. He specializes in water rights, Native Hawaiian rights, the legal history of Hawaii and conflict of laws.Dear Dr. Conklin:
The Joint Resolution was not capable of ratifying the Treaty of 1897. The Treaty of 1897, drafted by representatives of both the Republic of Hawaii and the United States specified the manner in which the Treaty was to be ratified by both countries: Article VII of the Treaty states:
ARTICLE VII.
This treaty shall be ratified by the President of the United States, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, on the one part; and by the President of the Republic of Hawaii, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, in accordance with the constitution of said Republic, on the other; and the ratifications hereof shall be exchanged at Washington as soon as possible.
In witness whereof the respective plenipotentiaries have signed the above articles and have hereunto affixed their seals.
Done in duplicate at the city of Washington, this sixteenth day of June, one thousand eight hundred and ninety-seven.
Article VII is an agreement between the United States and the Republic of Hawaii that ratification shall take only a certain form: The United States shall ratified by “the President of the United States, and with the advice and consent of the Senate,”... This phrase clearly refers to Article II of the United States Constitution which provides as follows:
Article II, Section 2 [1] He [The President of the United States] shall have the power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties , provided two thirds of the Senators present concur,...”.
When a treaty, as agreed to by two nations, specifies the means of ratification, the parties must ratify in the manner so specified. A treaty is not deemed ratified unless done so by the terms both nations agreed. The Joint Resolution is an act of Congress, a law and mere legislation. The Joint Resolution required a majority vote of the House to pass. It went on to the Senate where it only required a majority vote to pass. Whether or not it received a two thirds vote is irrelevant. Article II, Section 2, [1] makes clear that the House does not participate in the ratification of a treaty with a foreign power—except in the case of a treaty by which Congress directly admits a foreign state as State in the Union. This was the case as to Texas.
Most important, the Republic of Hawaii did not consider the Joint Resolution to be ratification of the Treaty of 1897. The Republic of Hawaii considered the terms of the Joint Resolution to vary significantly, by the interpretation of the Republic of Hawaii, from the terms of the Treaty of Hawaii. These two instruments, the Treaty of 1897 and the Joint Resolution were different documents, with different meanings. A treaty is formed only when both nations have a perfect meeting of the minds—usually when both agree to the same document.
The Republic of Hawaii made its objection to the use of the Joint Resolution as ratification, which the United States claimed very clear. The letters from A.S. Hartwell, Special Envoy of the Republic of Hawaii that Hartwell sent to President McKinley in October of 1899 make clear that the Republic did not consider the Joint Resolution of Annexation to constitute ratification of the Treaty of 1897. In this first quote, Hartwell points out, as of October 25, 1899, that ratification by the United States did not ratify the Treaty. This statement was made long after the Joint Resolution became effective, July 7, 1898. Thus, the Republic did not consider the Joint Resolution be a ratification of the Treat.
Under the authority given to the President of Hawaii by the Hawaiian constitution, to negotiate a treaty of political union with the United States, subject to ratification by the Hawaiian Senate, such a treaty was negotiated and signed by the authorized plenipotentiaries of each country, and was ratified by the Hawaiian Senate but not by the United States Senate. Consequently, that instrument failed to accomplish or to become evidence of a cession of Hawaii to the United States.
See Letter of Alfred S. Hartwell, Special Agent of the Government of Hawaii in Washington D.C. to President McKinley, October 25, 1899. [From the Manuscript Collection the Papers of A.S. Hartwell, Archives of State of Hawaii].
General Hartwell specifically noted in his letter to President McKinley that the Joint Resolution was not a ratification:
Upon the enactment of the Newlands resolution in the place of a ratified treaty, and its full equivalent, I respectfully submit that something was required in the nature of a ratification whereby official notice could be given to Hawaii that the United States had agreed upon annexation.
The inchoate treaty provided in its seventh article for an exchange of ratifications “at Washington as soon as possible,” Until such exchange, or something equivalent to it, there could be no cession accomplished by mutual agreement.
See Letter of Alfred S. Hartwell, Special Agent of the Government of Hawaii in Washington D.C. to President McKinley, October 25, 1899. [From the Manuscript Collection the Papers of A.S. Hartwell, Archives of State of Hawaii].
The Treaty of 1897 was laid before the United States Senate during the fall of 1897. It was not withdrawn by the President. It still lay before the United States Senate in July of 1898 when the Senate debated the Joint Resolution. So long as the Treaty lay before the Senate, as ratified by the Senate of the Republic of Hawaii on September 9, 1897,—ratification according to Article VII of the Treaty was the only means by which the United States could conclude that treaty with the Republic of Hawaii.
Any other means, such as the use of a Joint Resolution is ruled out by the language the United States, itself, agreed to. Moreover, the use of the Joint Resolution violates the enumerated powers allocated over foreign affairs to the President and the United States Senate. Lastly, the last requirement of Article VII was never completed. There never was an exchange of ratifications in Washington as required by Article VII.
A.S. Hartwell, on behalf of the Republic of Hawaii pointed out to President McKinley that the terms of the Treaty of 1897 and the Joint Resolution of 1898 differed a to a critical term. As such, the two instruments have different terms. The Treaty of 1897 and the Joint Resolution cannot be combined to form a single Treaty. Hartwell pointed out that the treaty proposed June 16, 1897 and the Joint Resolution differed as to material terms:
The Treaty in its first article declares that “all the territory of and appertaining to the Republic of Hawaii is hereby annexed to the United States of America under the name of the Territory of Hawaii;” thus securing to Hawaii a distinct political status which is not secured by the wording in the Newlands resolution.
See Letter of Alfred S. Hartwell, Special Agent of the Government of Hawaii in Washington D.C. to President McKinley, October 25, 1899. [From the Manuscript Collection the Papers of A.S. Hartwell, Archives of State of Hawaii].
In conclusion, the Joint Resolution of 1898 30 Stat 750, did not ratify the Treaty of Annexation 1897 [June 16, 1897].
Very truly yours,
Williamson Chang,
Professor of Law, University of Hawaii at Manoa.
William S. Richardson School of Law.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Dear Dr. Conklin:
The Joint Resolution was not capable of ratifying the Treaty of 1897. The Treaty of 1897, drafted by representatives of both the Republic of Hawaii and the United States specified the manner in which the Treaty was to be ratified by both countries: Article VII of the Treaty states:
ARTICLE VII.
This treaty shall be ratified by the President of the United States, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, on the one part; and by the President of the Republic of Hawaii, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, in accordance with the constitution of said Republic, on the other; and the ratifications hereof shall be exchanged at Washington as soon as possible.
In witness whereof the respective plenipotentiaries have signed the above articles and have hereunto affixed their seals.
Done in duplicate at the city of Washington, this sixteenth day of June, one thousand eight hundred and ninety-seven.
Article VII is an agreement between the United States and the Republic of Hawaii that ratification shall take only a certain form: The United States shall ratified by “the President of the United States, and with the advice and consent of the Senate,”... This phrase clearly refers to Article II of the United States Constitution which provides as follows:
Article II, Section 2 [1] He [The President of the United States] shall have the power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties , provided two thirds of the Senators present concur,...”.
When a treaty, as agreed to by two nations, specifies the means of ratification, the parties must ratify in the manner so specified. A treaty is not deemed ratified unless done so by the terms both nations agreed. The Joint Resolution is an act of Congress, a law and mere legislation. The Joint Resolution required a majority vote of the House to pass. It went on to the Senate where it only required a majority vote to pass. Whether or not it received a two thirds vote is irrelevant. Article II, Section 2, [1] makes clear that the House does not participate in the ratification of a treaty with a foreign power—except in the case of a treaty by which Congress directly admits a foreign state as State in the Union. This was the case as to Texas.
Most important, the Republic of Hawaii did not consider the Joint Resolution to be ratification of the Treaty of 1897. The Republic of Hawaii considered the terms of the Joint Resolution to vary significantly, by the interpretation of the Republic of Hawaii, from the terms of the Treaty of Hawaii. These two instruments, the Treaty of 1897 and the Joint Resolution were different documents, with different meanings. A treaty is formed only when both nations have a perfect meeting of the minds—usually when both agree to the same document.
The Republic of Hawaii made its objection to the use of the Joint Resolution as ratification, which the United States claimed very clear. The letters from A.S. Hartwell, Special Envoy of the Republic of Hawaii that Hartwell sent to President McKinley in October of 1899 make clear that the Republic did not consider the Joint Resolution of Annexation to constitute ratification of the Treaty of 1897. In this first quote, Hartwell points out, as of October 25, 1899, that ratification by the United States did not ratify the Treaty. This statement was made long after the Joint Resolution became effective, July 7, 1898. Thus, the Republic did not consider the Joint Resolution be a ratification of the Treat.
Under the authority given to the President of Hawaii by the Hawaiian constitution, to negotiate a treaty of political union with the United States, subject to ratification by the Hawaiian Senate, such a treaty was negotiated and signed by the authorized plenipotentiaries of each country, and was ratified by the Hawaiian Senate but not by the United States Senate. Consequently, that instrument failed to accomplish or to become evidence of a cession of Hawaii to the United States.
See Letter of Alfred S. Hartwell, Special Agent of the Government of Hawaii in Washington D.C. to President McKinley, October 25, 1899. [From the Manuscript Collection the Papers of A.S. Hartwell, Archives of State of Hawaii].
General Hartwell specifically noted in his letter to President McKinley that the Joint Resolution was not a ratification:
Upon the enactment of the Newlands resolution in the place of a ratified treaty, and its full equivalent, I respectfully submit that something was required in the nature of a ratification whereby official notice could be given to Hawaii that the United States had agreed upon annexation.
The inchoate treaty provided in its seventh article for an exchange of ratifications “at Washington as soon as possible,” Until such exchange, or something equivalent to it, there could be no cession accomplished by mutual agreement.
See Letter of Alfred S. Hartwell, Special Agent of the Government of Hawaii in Washington D.C. to President McKinley, October 25, 1899. [From the Manuscript Collection the Papers of A.S. Hartwell, Archives of State of Hawaii].
The Treaty of 1897 was laid before the United States Senate during the fall of 1897. It was not withdrawn by the President. It still lay before the United States Senate in July of 1898 when the Senate debated the Joint Resolution. So long as the Treaty lay before the Senate, as ratified by the Senate of the Republic of Hawaii on September 9, 1897,—ratification according to Article VII of the Treaty was the only means by which the United States could conclude that treaty with the Republic of Hawaii.
Any other means, such as the use of a Joint Resolution is ruled out by the language the United States, itself, agreed to. Moreover, the use of the Joint Resolution violates the enumerated powers allocated over foreign affairs to the President and the United States Senate. Lastly, the last requirement of Article VII was never completed. There never was an exchange of ratifications in Washington as required by Article VII.
A.S. Hartwell, on behalf of the Republic of Hawaii pointed out to President McKinley that the terms of the Treaty of 1897 and the Joint Resolution of 1898 differed a to a critical term. As such, the two instruments have different terms. The Treaty of 1897 and the Joint Resolution cannot be combined to form a single Treaty. Hartwell pointed out that the treaty proposed June 16, 1897 and the Joint Resolution differed as to material terms:
The Treaty in its first article declares that “all the territory of and appertaining to the Republic of Hawaii is hereby annexed to the United States of America under the name of the Territory of Hawaii;” thus securing to Hawaii a distinct political status which is not secured by the wording in the Newlands resolution.
See Letter of Alfred S. Hartwell, Special Agent of the Government of Hawaii in Washington D.C. to President McKinley, October 25, 1899. [From the Manuscript Collection the Papers of A.S. Hartwell, Archives of State of Hawaii].
In conclusion, the Joint Resolution of 1898 30 Stat 750, did not ratify the Treaty of Annexation 1897 [June 16, 1897].
Very truly yours,
Williamson Chang,
Professor of Law, University of Hawaii at Manoa.
William S. Richardson School of Law.Amelia Gora · Works at Self-EmployedJr Kuroiwa sad to see that many kanaka maoli don't know the true history....know that Premeditation has been uncovered which shows the conspiracies, the pillaging, piracy of a neutral, friendly, non-violent nation by broke ass/bankrupt nations including the U.S. and England....readhttp://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9F0CE6DC1F3FEF33A2575AC0A9679C94629ED7CF for starters then read all 537 issues of the IOLANI - The Royal Hawk news on the web theiolani.blogspot.com or accelerate your learning by reading the latest Legal Notice to President Obama, Governor Ige, et. als. because the Royal Families still exist...the land owners, the true Hawaiian Kingdom exists whether anybody likes it or not...and are the only parties to the permanent Treaty of 1850 at http://theiolani.blogspot.com/2015/03/special-posting-saturday-3715.html oh by the way Scalia is bound by the U.S. Constitution because the treaty supersedes State, Federal laws....and it was locked in place before the usurpation of the American people as documented by the bankers Secret Constitution in 1871 with the information thanks to and by whistle blowers Karen Hudes, World Bank; Vladimir Putin, Russia - who denounces One World Order/New World Order, etc. which can be seen at http://maoliworld.ning.com/forum/topics/updated-chronological-history-of-our-queen-liliuokalani-by-amelia and http://maoliworld.ning.com/forum/topics/updated-chronological-history-of-our-queen-liliuokalani-by-amelia by the way appears that my letter is the only one on the whitehouse website http://www.whitehouse.gov/assets/formsubmissions/54/c1dc2d2b35964f0392b21da2d9b05b42.pdf bet you that even you don't know that the U.S.A. became the U.S. and the American Empire documented in court case Peacock vs. the Republic of Hawaii in 1899.....bet you didn't know that the treasonous persons/conspirators/pirates /pillagers also placed Queen Liliuokalani back on the throne for a day in 1915 to celebrate the European's Balboa who visited the Pacific Ocean in 1514, etc....... empower yourself with knowledge, then blast the hell out of those who lie.......and by the way spread the truth and deny that the entity House of Representatives turned conspirator, treasonous persons supported by the U.S. and the American Empire, turned Provisional government, then Republic of Hawaii, then Territory of Hawaii, and State of Hawaii by U.S. President Eisenhower's executive order, are successors to our Hawaiian Kingdom as claimed in "THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF THE TERRITORY OF HAWAII TO REGISTER AND CONFIRM ITS TITLE TO CERTAIN LAND SITUATE IN LAHAINA, ISLAND OF MAUI, TERRITORY OF HAWAII, AND KNOWN AS PA PELEKANE" (1912), HAWAII REPORTS Vol 21, Supreme Court of Hawaii, RH 345.4 H32 v.21 pg. 177
"That the Territory, as successor to the Kingdom of Hawaii, has obtained title to this lot by prescription."
There was no treaty of Annexation, the Kamehameha III - Kauikeaouli's heirs and successors exists and are parties to the 1850 Treaty of the Hawaiian Kingdom and the United States of America....,. ;) Many nations are watching us because we're from a neutral, friendly, non-violent nation and we're surrounded by Pirates/Pillagers etc....wicked lot.... aloha.........the best to Kanaka Maoli, Konohiki, Assistant Konohiki, and Friends
Amelia Gora · Works at Self-EmployedTexas was taken over, occupied by the same sugar planters from the Hawaiian Islands who occupied Mexican Territory, then had the U.S. Calvary help to protect their asses/er assets....that was a good Freudian slip...lol.......anywayz if you view the characters involved, you'll see that even today many of the Texans have their roots, relatives residing in the Hawaiian Islands....for example, the Cutter family in the Hawaiian Islands and their relative who moved over from Texas named Linda Lingle who became Governor....and recently she's back in the news http://bipartisanpolicy.org/person/linda-lingle/....red flags because the 'One World order activists seems to be spanning from the Hawaiian Islands, Texas, and Illinois with the Booth families........fyi....the Booth's are Obama's families by the way...... they are also Confederate General Robert E. Lee's bloodlines who was one of the heirs of George Washington's whose wife was a stock holder in the Bank of England........Obama is from a pirate, pillaging banker family being part of ( faggot )Charles Reed Bishop's sister who was a namesake of Bernice Pauahi Bishop., Charles Reed Bishop who was married to Bernice Pauahi Bishop was a banker, whose lover was William Lee, an American Consulate worker, attorney, judge.... anywayz see http://maoliworld.ning.com/forum/topics/exposing-obama-charles-reed... The Booth family appears to be tied to the One World Order, etc. due to the descendants being part of the auto sales (including Cutter - cousin of Linda Lingle); food chain - Foodland; airline industry, and the Bank of Hawaii....the bankers....their ancestor Booth was a "nigger hating" Englishman documented....his widow married into the Long's family (could it be the Long's Drugs chain? - research incomplete)... he had a son John Booth who went missing around the time U.S. President Lincoln was shot/assassinated..... also the Bush family also has its roots in the Hawaiian Islands....they have cousins here....and appears Candoleeza Rice too...the Rice family on the outer islands, etc..... observing that the various players, the pirates, pillages of the Hawaiian Islands and the world are the same people who have their wealth off of our Hawaiian monies, the Middle East areas due to the oil ---- car companies---airlines connections.... oh, interestingly the Court of Claims that Queen Liliuokalani entered in over the Crown Lands.which was claimed Ceded by the treasonous persons...Booth declared that the Ceded lands belonged to the office and not Queen Liliuokalani, etc.....(do you see more of the criminal wrongs? the wrongs by criminal deviants with roots from the same families?).....had Fenton Booth as the newly appointed Judge of the period...he was from Illinois....the same area where Obama attended school....the same think tank that houses the One World Order/New World Order activists.... hope everyone also smells something stink too....http://maoliworld.ning.com/forum/topics/exposing-obama-thru-genealo... also see what the greed is all about in the following film by Kili Kekumano and watch a LepreCON Pirate named (former Governor and Congressman) Neal Abercrombie explain it well in his greedy little low life way.... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fjELyim8q80 oh by the way Kamehameha's families/the Royal Families exists.... the heirs are here fyi.....and the entity State of Hawaii who claim to be successors of the Kingdom of Hawaii are Not related to us! Empower yourselves with knowledge folks and watch all the greedy players who are not even kanaka maoli! ;)
aloha.Reference:- http://maoliworld.com/forum/topics/judge-scalia-a-disinformer-or-un...
- othe references:13) 1897-
President Cleveland Gave Hawaii Back to Queen Liliuokalanihttps://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B6Gs4av5Se1wN2JkZjMxMzEtMDIyNi00YW…14) 1897 – Annexation Opposition by Queen Liliuokalani found by researcher Kiliwehi Kekumano: https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B6Gs4av5Se1wOGJmZjg4MmQtNWRjMS00NT…Annexation Opposition (page 2) https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B6Gs4av5Se1wNWVlMTc0MjEtZWZiZS00Y2…Annexation Opposition (page 3) https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B6Gs4av5Se1wY2RjYzZmNjQtMjUxYi00Zm…Annexation Opposition (page 4) https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B6Gs4av5Se1wNmY2Mzk3ZTctZDEyMy00Yz…15) The Hawaiian Disgrace http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=F70A1FF7345D11738…16) Shameful Conspiracy https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B6Gs4av5Se1wN2Y2YjAwOTItOTEwMC00Mz…Told ya, we're surrounded by PIRATES, PILLAGERS, Criminal Devians, Racketeers, American MAFIA......... reference on Mafia, etc.: http://theiolani.blogspot.com/2012/04/legalnotice.html http://theiolani.blogspot.com/2012/05/iolanipart1.htmlhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QrY9eHkXTa4 Redemption Song
Permalink Reply by Amelia Gora on
- Delete
- More References: http://maoliworld.ning.com/forum/topics/hawaiian-kanaka-maoli-homel... theiolani.blogspot.com http://myweb.ecomplanet.com/GORA8037https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nNh-D1wb0bw Drunken Sailor - Rapalje
- Permalink Reply by on
- 2015 -
On Annexation of Hawaii, Scalia Fails Constitutionality Test
A joint resolution of Congress doesn't empower the United States to acquire another country. Only a treaty can do that.
MARCH 7, 2015·By WILLIAMSON CHANGIn Civil Beat recently, Justice Antonin Scalia, associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, made two critical points on the annexation of Hawaii: First, he stated that a joint resolution of the United States could acquire the territory of Hawaii — a foreign, sovereign and independent nation state. Second, he stated that the Constitution permitted the use of a joint resolution instead of a treaty.He was wrong on both points.First, a joint resolution is merely a law, an act of Congress. It has no power to acquire the territory of a foreign, sovereign state. If such a thing were possible, Hawaii itself could have, by an act of its Legislature, acquired the United States. Second, the only mode by which the United States could acquire Hawaii, an independent and sovereign nation like the United States, would be by treaty.Collection of the Supreme Court of the United StatesIn answering a student’s question regarding the United States’ annexation of Hawaii, Supreme Court Justice Scalia overlooked important constitutional provisions.Second, the acquisition of Hawaii by a joint resolution of Congress would undermine the Constitution. The use of a joint resolution in place of a treaty would be an “end run” around an enumerated power — the power over foreign affairs that is delegated solely to the president and the Senate. The House has no power as to foreign affairs and does not vote on or ratify treaties.Moreover, the use of joint resolution to accomplish a treaty with a foreign sovereign undermines the super-majority required of the Senate as to the ratification of treaties. The Senate must ratify such measures by a two-thirds majority of those Senators present.This is made clear in the U.S. Constitution, Article II, Clause 2: “[The President] shall have the Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur …”The inability of President William McKinley to garner the necessary two-thirds vote in the Senate to ratify the Treaty of Annexation of 1897 led the administration to seek annexation by a mere act of Congress — a joint resolution. The administration could pass a joint resolution but not a treaty. This is precisely why McKinley attempted to annex by joint resolution.https://www.civilbeat.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/image5.jpg" alt="McKinley"/>
President William McKinley, whose administration sought the annexation of Hawaii.Many are ignorant of or deceived about the joint resolution and the acquisition of Hawaii. Many do not know the specifics of the U.S. Constitution or the history of Hawaii. Yet, we expect more from Justice Scalia, for he has great power over the future of Native Hawaiians. His exchange with Jacob Bryan Aki, as published in Civil Beat, showed a surprising lack of constitutional knowledge. Aki, a Hawaiian student at George Washington University, asked Justice Scalia the following question during a class visit to the Supreme Court on Feb. 11:“Does the Constitution provide Congress the power to annex a foreign nation through a joint resolution rather than a treaty?”Scalia answered by first turning the question back at Aki. “Why would a treaty be needed,” he asked. “There is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits Congress from annexing a foreign state through the means of a joint resolution. If the joint resolution is passed through both the U.S. House and Senate, then signed by the president, it went through a ‘process.’ ”
- Permalink Reply by on
- Permalink Reply by on
Comments
Amelia Gora also posted at http://iolani-theroyalhawk.blogspot.com/.../us-president...ManageAmelia Gora https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=89BlFxuyqYQ
EDIT: I am almost to one million views. Holy crap! OKAY PEOPLE!! Listen, I just made…YOUTUBE.COMKingdom of Hawaii Review: U.S. President Cleveland's Messages About Hawaii - Includes Evidence of Two Letters Prepared for Mr. Willis to Deliver, Treaties Still Applicable, etc.
Views: 3Replies to This Discussion
- Permalink Reply by
- EXECUTIVE MANSION, Washington, December 18, 1893.To the Senate of the United States:In compliance with a resolution passed by the Senate on the 6th instant, I hereby transmit reports of the Secretaries of State and of the Navy, with copies of all instructions given to the respective diplomatic and naval representatives of the United States in the Hawaiian Islands since the 4th day of March, 1881, touching the matters specified in the resolution.It has seemed convenient to include in the present communication to the Senate copies of the diplomatic correspondence concerning the political condition of Hawaii, prepared for transmission to the House of Representatives in response to a later resolution passed by that body on the 13th instant.GROVER CLEVELAND.EXECUTIVE MANSION, Washington, December 18, 1893.To the House of Representatives:In compliance with a resolution passed by your honorable body on the 13th instant, I hereby transmit a report of the Secretary of State, with copies of the instructions given to Mr. Albert S. Willis, the representative of the United States now in the Hawaiian Islands, and also the correspondence since the 4th day of March, 1889, concerning the relations of this Government to those islands.In making this communication I have withheld only a dispatch from the former minister to Hawaii, numbered 70, under date of October 8, 1892, and a dispatch from the present minister, numbered 3, under date of November 16, 1893, because in my opinion the publication of these two papers would be incompatible with the public interest.GROVER CLEVELAND.EXECUTIVE MANSION, January 13, 1894.To the Congress:I transmit herewith copies of all dispatches from our minister at Hawaii relating in any way to political affairs in that country, except such as have been heretofore laid before the Congress.I also transmit a copy of the last instructions sent to our minister, dated January 12, 1894, being the only instructions to him not already sent to the Congress.In transmitting certain correspondence with my message dated December 18, 1893, I withheld a dispatch from our present minister, numbered 3 and dated November 16, 1893, and also a dispatch from our former minister, numbered 70 and dated October 8, 1892. Inasmuch as the contents of the dispatch of November 16, 1893, are referred to in the dispatches of a more recent date, now sent to Congress, and inasmuch as there seems no longer to be sufficient reason for withholding said dispatch, a copy of the same is herewith submitted. The dispatch numbered 70 and dated October 8, 1892, above referred to, is still withheld for the reason that such a course still appears to be justifiable and proper.GROVER CLEVELAND.EXECUTIVE MANSION, January 20, 1894.To the Congress:I transmit herewith dispatches received yesterday from our minister at Hawaii, with certain correspondence which accompanied the same, including a most extraordinary letter, dated December 27, 1893, signed by Sanford B. Dole, minister of foreign affairs of the Provisional Government, addressed to our minister, Mr. Willis, and delivered to him a number of hours after the arrival at Honolulu of a copy of my message to Congress on the Hawaiian question, with copies of instructions given to our minister.GROVER CLEVELAND.EXECUTIVE MANSION, January 22, 1894.To the Congress:I transmit herewith copies of dispatches received from our minister to Hawaii after the arrival of those copies which accompanied my message of the 20th instant. I also inclose, for the information of Congress, copies of reports and a copy of an order just received by the Secretary of the Navy from Rear-Admiral Irwin, commanding our naval forces at Honolulu.GROVER CLEVELAND.EXECUTIVE MANSION, February 2, 1894.To the Congress:I transmit a communication from the Secretary of State, accompanying a dispatch received a few days ago from our minister at Hawaii.GROVER CLEVELAND.EXECUTIVE MANSION, Washington, February 12, 1894.To the Congress:I transmit herewith two dispatches received a few days ago from our minister at Hawaii, and a reply to one of them from the Secretary of State, in which a correct version is given of an interview which occurred November 14, 1893, between the Secretary of State and Mr. Thurston, representing the Provisional Government at Washington.GROVER CLEVELAND.EXECUTIVE MANSION, February 16, 1894.To the Senate and House of Representatives:I transmit herewith, for the information of Congress, a communication from the Secretary of State, covering the report of the Director of the Bureau of the American Republics for the year 1893.GROVER CLEVELAND.EXECUTIVE MANSION, February 19, 1894.To the House of Representatives:I herewith transmit copies of certain dispatches recently received from our minister at Honolulu.GROVER CLEVELAND.EXECUTIVE MANSION, February 19, 1894.To the Senate:On the evening of the 16th instant I received a copy of a resolution passed by the Senate, requesting the transmission to that body of all reports and dispatches from our minister at Hawaii, and especially a certain letter written to him by Mr. Dole, President of the Provisional Government.On the same day I received from the State Department a copy of a dispatch from Minister Willis, accompanied by various exhibits. I was not able to send them to the Senate on that day. The Senate adjourned that afternoon until to-day, and thus prevented the submission until now of these papers.The next day after the receipt of the Senate resolution, and on the 17th instant, other dispatches were received from Mr. Willis at the State Department. They were copied with all possible haste, and are now submitted at the first meeting of the Senate since their receipt. They include the letter mentioned in the Senate resolution and the answer of Minister Willis to the same.Since the 18th day of December last, when I submitted to the "broader authority and discretion of the Congress" all matters connected with our relations with Hawaii, I have with the utmost promptness transmitted to the Congress all dispatches and reports relative to the subject, and I am not aware of any dispatches or documents in the remotest way connected with these relations which have come to the possession of the State Department or the Executive and been withheld from the Senate.GROVER CLEVELAND.EXECUTIVE MANSION, Washington, March 7, 1894.To the Senate of the United States:I transmit herewith a report submitted by the Secretary of State in response to the resolution of the Senate dated January 23, 1894, requesting communication of correspondence exchanged between the Government of the United States and the Governments of Colombia, Venezuela, and Hayti.GROVER CLEVELAND.EXECUTIVE MANSION, March 7, 1894.To the Congress:I transmit herewith copies of certain dispatches lately received from our minister at Hawaii, together with copies of the inclosures which accompanied such dispatches.GROVER CLEVELAND.EXECUTIVE MANSION, March 8, 1894.To the Senate of the United States:I transmit herewith a report furnished by the Secretary of State in response to a resolution of the Senate of the 1st instant, making inquiry respecting the present condition of the Virginius indemnity fund.GROVER CLEVELAND.EXECUTIVE MANSION, Washington, D.C., March 14, 1894.To the Senate:I herewith transmit a report5 of the Secretary of State of the 14th instant, concerning the several inquiries in the resolution of the Senate addressed to him under date of the 9th instant.GROVER CLEVELAND.EXECUTIVE MANSION, Washington, July 24, 1894.To the Congress:I herewith transmit a communication from the Secretary of State, covering a dispatch from the United States minister at Honolulu.GROVER CLEVELAND.TWO LETTERS (Important: Also Documented by Ingersoll, Orator and Attorney)EXECUTIVE MANSION, Washington, July 30, 1894.To the Congress:I herewith transmit a communication from the Secretary of State, covering two dispatches from the United States minister at Honolulu.GROVER CLEVELAND.TREATY APPLICATIONS AFFECTING THE HAWAIIAN ISLANDS, ENGLAND, ETC.EXECUTIVE MANSION, January 9, 1895.To the Senate and House of Representatives:I submit herewith certain dispatches from our minister at Hawaii and the documents which accompanied the same.They disclose the fact that the Hawaiian Government desires to lease to Great Britain one of the uninhabited islands belonging to Hawaii as a station for a submarine telegraph cable to be laid from Canada to Australia, with a connection between the island leased and Honolulu.Both the Hawaiian Government and the representatives of Great Britain in this negotiation concede that the proposed lease can not be effected without the consent of the United States, for the reason that in our reciprocity treaty with the King of Hawaii he agreed that as long as said treaty remained in force he would not "lease or otherwise dispose of or create any lien upon any port, harbor, or other territory in his dominion, or grant any special privilege or right of use therein, to any other power, state, or government."At the request of the Hawaiian Government this subject is laid before the Congress for its determination upon the question of so modifying the treaty agreement above recited as to permit the proposed lease.It will be seen that the correspondence which is submitted between the Hawaiian and British negotiators negatives the existence on the part of Hawaii of any suspicion of British unfriendliness or the fear of British aggression.The attention of the Congress is directed to the following statement contained in a communication addressed to the Hawaiian Government by the representatives of Great Britain:We propose to inform the British Government of your inquiry whether they would accept the sovereignty of Nicker Island or some other uninhabited island on condition that no subsidy is required from you. As we explained, we have not felt at liberty to entertain that question ourselves, as we were definitely instructed not to ask for the sovereignty of any island, but only for a lease simply for the purpose of the cable.Some of the dispatches from our minister, which are submitted, not only refer to the project for leasing an uninhabited island belonging to Hawaii, but contain interesting information concerning recent occurrences in that country and its political and social condition. This information is valuable because it is based upon the observation and knowledge necessarily within the scope of the diplomatic duties which are intrusted solely to the charge of this intelligent diplomatic officer representing the United States Government at Hawaii.I hope the Congress will see fit to grant the request of the Hawaiian Government, and that our consent to the proposed lease will be promptly accorded. It seems to me we ought not by a refusal of this request to stand in the way of the advantages to be gained by isolated Hawaii through telegraphic communication with the rest of the world, especially in view of the fact that our own communication with that country would thereby be greatly improved without apparent detriment to any legitimate American interest.GROVER CLEVELAND.
- Permalink Reply by
- NEUTRALITY - Also Applicable to Hawaii
BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
A PROCLAMATION.
Whereas by a proclamation dated the 12th day of June, A.D. 1895,34 attention was called to the serious civil disturbances, accompanied by armed resistance to the established Government of Spain, then prevailing in the island of Cuba, and citizens of the United States and all other persons were admonished to abstain from taking part in such disturbances in contravention of the neutrality laws of the United States; andWhereas said civil disturbances and armed resistance to the authority of Spain, a power with which the United States are on terms of peace and amity, continue to prevail in said island of Cuba; andWhereas since the date of said proclamation said neutrality laws of the United States have been the subject of authoritative exposition by the judicial tribunal of last resort, and it has thus been declared that any combination of persons organized in the United States for the purpose of proceeding to and making war upon a foreign country with which the United States are at peace, and provided with arms to be used for such purpose, constitutes a "military expedition or enterprise" within the meaning of said neutrality laws, and that the providing or preparing of the means for such "military expedition or enterprise," which is expressly prohibited by said laws, includes furnishing or aiding in transportation for such "military expedition or enterprise;" andWhereas, by express enactment, if two or more persons conspire to commit an offense against the United States any act of one conspirator to effect the object of such conspiracy renders all the conspirators liable to fine and imprisonment; andWhereas there is reason to believe that citizens of the United States and others within their jurisdiction fail to apprehend the meaning and operation of the neutrality laws of the United States as authoritatively interpreted as aforesaid, and may be misled into participation in transactions which are violations of said laws and will render them liable to the severe penalties provided for such violations:Now, therefore, that the laws above referred to, as judicially construed, may be duly executed, that the international obligations of the United States may be fully satisfied, and that their citizens and all others within their jurisdiction, being seasonably apprised of their legal duty in the premises, may abstain from disobedience to the laws of the United States and thereby escape the forfeitures and penalties legally consequent thereon, I, Grover Cleveland, President of the United States, do hereby solemnly warn all citizens of the United States and all others within their jurisdiction against violations of the said laws, interpreted as hereinbefore explained, and give notice that all such violations will be vigorously prosecuted; and I do hereby invoke the cooperation of all good citizens in the enforcement of said laws and in the detection and apprehension of any offenders against the same, and do hereby enjoin upon all the executive officers of the United States the utmost diligence in preventing, prosecuting, and punishing any infractions thereof.In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the United States to be affixed,[SEAL.]Done at the city of Washington, this 27th day of July, A.D. 1896, and of the Independence of the United States the one hundred and twenty-first.GROVER CLEVELAND.By the President:RICHARD OLNEY,Secretary of State.TREATIES CONTINUE TO OPERATE:EXECUTIVE MANSION, January 11, 1897.To the Senate:I transmit herewith a treaty for the arbitration of all matters in difference between the United States and Great Britain.The provisions of the treaty are the result of long and patient deliberation and represent concessions made by each party for the sake of agreement upon the general scheme.Though the result reached may not meet the views of the advocates of immediate, unlimited, and irrevocable arbitration of all international controversies, it is nevertheless confidently believed that the treaty can not fail to be everywhere recognized as making a long step in the right direction and as embodying a practical working plan by which disputes between the two countries will reach a peaceful adjustment as matter of course and in ordinary routine.In the initiation of such an important movement it must be expected that some of its features will assume a tentative character looking to a further advance, and yet it is apparent that the treaty which has been formulated not only makes war between the parties to it a remote possibility, but precludes those fears and rumors of war which of themselves too often assume the proportions of national disaster.It is eminently fitting as well as fortunate that the attempts to accomplish results so beneficent should be initiated by kindred peoples, speaking the same tongue and joined together by all the ties of common traditions, common institutions, and common aspirations. The experiment of substituting civilized methods for brute force as the means of settling international questions of right will thus be tried under the happiest auspices. Its success ought not to be doubtful, and the fact that its ultimate ensuing benefits are not likely to be limited to the two countries immediately concerned should cause it to be promoted all the more eagerly. The examples set and the lesson furnished by the successful operation of this treaty are sure to be felt and taken to heart sooner or later by other nations, and will thus mark the beginning of a new epoch in civilization.Profoundly impressed as I am, therefore, by the promise of transcendent good which this treaty affords, I do not hesitate to accompany its transmission with an expression of my earnest hope that it may commend itself to the favorable consideration of the Senate.GROVER CLEVELAND.NOTICE TO SENATORS TO TAKE NOTICE OF A PROCLAMATION NOT REVEALED.BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
A PROCLAMATION.
Whereas public interests require that the Senate should be convened at 12 o'clock on the 4th day of March next to receive such communications as may be made by the Executive:Now, therefore, I, Grover Cleveland, President of the United States of America, do hereby proclaim and declare that an extraordinary occasion requires the Senate of the United States to convene at the Capitol, in the city of Washington, on the 4th day of March next, at 12 o'clock noon, of which all persons who shall at that time be entitled to act as members of that body are hereby required to take notice.Given under my hand and the seal of the United States, at Washington, the 24th day of February, A.D. 1897, and of the Independence of the United States the one hundred and twenty-first.[SEAL.]GROVER CLEVELAND.
By the President
RICHARD OLNEY,
Secretary of State.SUMMARYThe above selected articles of U.S. President Cleveland shows that U.S. President Cleveland did indeed return Hawaii Back to Queen Liliuokalani in 1894 AND 1897.The Neutrality, Treaties, etc.were still in operation with Great Britain, and other nations.Although the words appears to have been carefully recorded, subtle information was given to those who were well aware of what President Cleveland conveyed in his Proclamations, etc.Research incomplete.aloha.
- Permalink Reply by
- Reference: MAKA ALA THE SLEEPING GIANT - Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3 by Amelia Gora (2017)IOLANI - The Royal Hawk news on the web 675 issues to dateOLELO TV show by Hawaiian Bryan on News in Hawaii, etc.
Footnotes
1 (return)See pp. 377-378.2 (return)See pp. 395-396.3 (return)See Vol. VIII, pp. 353-355.4 (return)See pp. 348-349.5 (return)Relating to the coined silver money and the products of India, Russia, and the Argentine Republic.6 (return)Relating to the probable retaliatory action of foreign governments for the proposed imposition by the United States of a duty on sugar.7 (return)See pp. 368-369.8 (return)See pp. 94-97.9 (return)See pp. 440-441.10 (return)See p. 439.11 (return)See p. 477.12 (return)See Vol. VIII, pp. 517-518.13 (return)See p. 478.14 (return)See pp. 553-556.15 (return)See p. 476.16 (return)See p. 557.17 (return)See pp. 561-565.18 (return)See pp. 501-510.19 (return)See pp. 167-172.20 (return)Upon trial for desertion and conviction of absence without leave only, the court may, in addition to the limit prescribed for such absence, award a stoppage of the amount paid for apprehension.21 (return)Including first and excluding last.22 (return)In specifications to charges of larceny or embezzlement the value of the property shall be stated.23 (return)See pp. 439, 531-532.24 (return)See p. 477.25 (return)See p. 624.26 (return)See pp. 561-565.27 (return)See pp. 567-568.28 (return)See p. 632.29 (return)See p. 634.30 (return)See p. 633.31 (return)See Vol. IV, pp. 466-469.32 (return)See Vol. V, pp. 307-322.33 (return)See p. 9334 (return)See pp. 591-592.35 (return)See Vol. VIII, pp. 741-742.36 (return)See p. 624.37 (return)See pp. 450-451.38 (return)Of the second class 52,348,297 was county-free matter.39 (return)See pp. 701-711.40 (return)See pp. 501-510.41 (return)See pp. 501-51042 (return)See p. 58443 (return)See pp. 501-51044 (return)See pp. 155-156.End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents, by Grover Cleveland *** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK GROVER CLEVELAND *** ***** This file should be named 14137-h.htm or 14137-h.zip ***** This and all associated files of various formats will be found in: http://www.gutenberg.net/1/4/1/3/14137/ Produced by Juliet Sutherland, David Garcia and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team. Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions will be renamed. Creating the works from public domain print editions means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you charge for the eBooks, unless you receive specific permission. If you do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the rules is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and research. They may be modified and printed and given away--you may do practically ANYTHING with public domain eBooks. Redistribution is subject to the trademark license, especially commercial redistribution. *** START: FULL LICENSE *** THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work (or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project Gutenberg-tm License (available with this file or online at http://gutenberg.net/license). Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works 1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property (trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8. 1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below. 1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the Foundation" or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an individual work is in the public domain in the United States and you are located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg-tm License when you share it without charge with others. 1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any country outside the United States. 1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: 1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work on which the phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the phrase "Project Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, copied or distributed: This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.net 1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is derived from the public domain (does not contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase "Project Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. 1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work. 1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. 1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project Gutenberg-tm License. 1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format other than "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official version posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site (www.gutenberg.net), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg-tm License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. 1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. 1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works provided that - You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in Section 4, "Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation." - You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg-tm works. - You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of receipt of the work. - You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. 1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and Michael Hart, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below. 1.F. 1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread public domain works in creating the Project Gutenberg-tm collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain "Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by your equipment. 1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH F3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE. 1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further opportunities to fix the problem. 1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS' WITH NO OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTIBILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. 1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions. 1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg-tm work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any Defect you cause. Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from people in all walks of life. Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the assistance they need, is critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation web page at http://www.pglaf.org. Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit 501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification number is 64-6221541. Its 501(c)(3) letter is posted at http://pglaf.org/fundraising. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. The Foundation's principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr. S. Fairbanks, AK, 99712., but its volunteers and employees are scattered throughout numerous locations. Its business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887, email business@pglaf.org. Email contact links and up to date contact information can be found at the Foundation's web site and official page at http://pglaf.org For additional contact information: Dr. Gregory B. Newby Chief Executive and Director gbnewby@pglaf.org Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations ($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt status with the IRS. The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular state visit http://pglaf.org While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who approach us with offers to donate. International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other ways including including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To donate, please visit: http://pglaf.org/donate Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Professor Michael S. Hart is the originator of the Project Gutenberg-tm concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared with anyone. For thirty years, he produced and distributed Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support. Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition. Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility: http://www.gutenberg.net This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.
No comments:
Post a Comment