|
that we submitted, or asked to submit, is consistent with what you're trying to do and
<br />accomplish within your Charter. You're trying to go through here, shift things around,
<br />and make it proper, and giving authority to other people. And in this case, I believe I
<br />read it just to say you're giving authority not only to the - as long as ordinances is
<br />passed, that shared a transfer to the Department of Public Works. It sends a message
<br />to the Native Hawaiians that if it stands as it is, maybe Public Works now can come on
<br />our property and tell us what to do, which we believe is inconsistent and can't be done
<br />based on these Opinions that have been there. So, that's basically why I'm here, and
<br />again, I thank the Vice -Chairman and members of this committee, for allowing us at
<br />least come up with some language, a dialogue, that we can come forward and present
<br />to you, and I hope that my example I tried to show you was just to make some
<br />clarification in the body's mind that this is where the Native Hawaiians have a problem.
<br />Among other things, but this was a clear example of trying to show a discrepancy so
<br />again, thank you very much.
<br />RAY: Thank you. Mr. Jim, you've got something to add?
<br />JIM: I'd just like to add a little. One of the things that Pat didn't mention,
<br />and I'd like to address. First of all, the Hawaii Constitution, Article 12, which is the
<br />Hawaiian Affairs, it's in your Constitution and it's mandated by this Commissioners, or
<br />County Officers, or everyone, the State Officers, that they have to follow because it's
<br />the law of the State. The problem that we had in the past, and probably in the future, is
<br />that when it comes up to changing the Charter, the problem we find they never include,
<br />• or exclude, Article 12, Native Hawaiian Affairs. It is clear, by the Supreme Court
<br />decision, Cayetano vs. Rice, that the Native Hawaiians, by Statutes in the Constitution
<br />of Article 12, we are special class of Native Hawaiians, distinctly separate from the
<br />body political. In Article 1 and Article 8 of the Constitution, which is the county, local
<br />government, does not apply to Article 12. It's not withstanding. It's clearly identified by
<br />the Rice case, and the Ninth Circuit as well. Our position is that those facts has been
<br />there all the time, but it takes a Supreme Court to make it aware. Our position is very
<br />simple. We'd like this body here to address the issue of Hawaiian Affairs in your
<br />Charter. You're in or you're out. And it's clearly identified — we're separate, identified
<br />by your County Council. This last week your Corporate Counsel, clearly on television,
<br />letting everyone know for the first time they don't have jurisdiction over Hawaiian home
<br />lands. That's the Wal-Mart sewer system. So, our position is - it's very simply we
<br />come before this body as Native Hawaiians. Please, we would like you to address the
<br />issue in your Charter to be clear. The law is clear. All you have to do is read Article
<br />12. It clearly tells you. If you want a copy of the Supreme Court decision, we have the
<br />transcripts. Your attorney can get that. Clearly identifies we are a special class. We
<br />are separate, and the County have no jurisdiction and the State have no jurisdiction. It
<br />clearly made it cases that the Commissioners operate and manage Hawaiian home
<br />lands. And going over your Charter program, reading it, I find it never include Hawaiian
<br />home lands. It is the law of this State. Article 12 clearly tells you that you adopted it.
<br />Please don't leave us out. Thank you.
<br />•
<br />RAY: Questions for either Pat or Mr. Jim? George.
<br />6
<br />
|