The spoof used to justify taking native Hawaiian land using local law, according to the Inouye conjecture, is no inherent federal protection exists “yet." The legal action substantiates this is a cleverly disguised political lie.
A 1980 legal action of the same plaintiffs demonstrated inherent federal superintendence as encoded in Title 25 CFR protects actual native land use against alienation. A 1980 settlement has been unenforced for political reasons, leading to suing the US for negligence in 2016.
The 2016 action seeks severance of the state's 1959 admission act language open to misinterpretation as seeming to confer authority on the state's Asian derived majority population to regulate land use so that it never can be used to enrich the surviving nearest kinship group of natives.
Had this same greedy gimmick been used by lower 48 settler populations to control land use legislation, there would be no Washington, DC protected Indian nation sovereignty and so no Indian land commerce whatsoever: meaning no self determination enterprises; no robust gaming attractions; no lucrative HEARTH Act leasing.
State and local law would preempt federal statutes encoding the intent of Congress, peppering the states with local majority population versions of legendary Jim Crow style codes. Plus the lower 48 would be completely infested with the same kind of counterfeit state “Indian” endeavors as in the 50th state, where the imitative colonial missionary school “royal Hawaiian culture” as tourism industry fodder muddles the real deal.
From the law suit: “The rights sought to be secured in this action are rights of plaintiff as a native Hawaiian beneficiary (the blood quantum set by the statute and employed by the Hou is from fifty to one hundred percent) of the standard full Native American franchise of the Federal Government under the Commerce Clause, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3, as extended to the Territory of Hawaii in the originalHawaiian Homes Commission Act, signed on July 9, 1921 into the Law of the Land.
“4 - Chief Maui Loa, plaintiff, asks leave of the learned Court to do the following: (a) Motion the Court to dismiss plaintiff's complaint alleging negligence against defendants Lynch and Jewell conditioned upon the Court severing or otherwise correcting the offensive phrase (or phrases) in the Hawaii Admission Act that violates the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, and (b) instead of a trial in Washington DC on the merits, this learned Court consider writing an expansive Opinion on the merits, as already briefed, that includes Relief already briefed, the effect of which restores justice for plaintiff through realignment of inherent native Hawaiian land use rights and other rights with federal law, and (c) that defendants not oppose any of this.
“5 - With respect to offensive language in the Hawaii Admission Act, the United States Supreme Court, in Hillsborough County, Florida, et al, versus Automated Medical Laboratories, Inc. 471 U.S. 707 (1985) found law that rules in the instant case: “It is a familiar and well-established principle that the Supremacy Clause, US Constitution invalidates state laws that “interfere with, or are contrary to” federal law, Gibbons v Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1. 211 (1824) (Marshall, C.J.).”
The late great war hero, Senator Inouye, diverted some 12 billion dollars of funding designated by Congress for Indian Country to the state of Hawaii's bureaucrats and political insiders allegedly to pay them to administer state programs for “Hawaiians”. That same class of members of the public found to be a racial group in the Opinion of the US Supreme Court in Rice v Cayetano, 1999. Not one dollar of those billions actually reached any native Hawaiian.
The 50th state's tourism economy is robust, even without Seminole style or Macau style luxury gaming destination resorts in the mix, so Chief Maui Loa's economic development plan is to integrate native Hawaiian land use protected by direct federal jurisdiction as to use for commerce into the next 50 years of expansion. This floats all canoes, replacing the state continuing to fleece Indian Country using the same old scheme employed for the past 50 years during the build up of upscale tourism on native Hawaiian lands taken by settlers and missionaries during their colonial prime.
Frederich Nicholas Trenchard, MFA, was a visiting professor at a University in Hawaii when he met Kahuna Kamuela Price, Elder Counsel of the Hou 1778 Hawaiians. Advocating for the native Hawaiian then became a lifelong pursuit.