No, this will not be yet another allegation that Barack Obama was born in Kenya — he most certainly was not. There is not solid evidence, in fact, that he was born anywhere else but Honolulu, Hawai’i. The question which is necessary to pose for this blog is one of the actual legal status of the State of Hawai’i. Hawai’i, for those who do not know, was an independent kingdom until 1893 when a group of American business men decided to relieved the internationally-recognised queen, Lili’uokalani, of her throne and form a “provisional” government of the Republic of Hawai’i. These men, lead by Sanford Dole, yes, of the Dole Corporation, would be the ones who would eventually annex Hawai’i to the United States in 1900. This is where it starts to get interesting — the Republic of Hawai’i was never the legitimate government of Hawai’i so it was never in the position to sign Hawai’i up to anything. It is unconstitutional for the US government to sign a treaty with an illegitimate government. It is also unconstitutional for the US to simply seize and occupy the territory of another nation. In the case of Hawai’i, the United States has and continues to do so. Thus, the statehood of Hawai’i is itself unconstitutional. So was Barack Obama born in the United States? No, he was not. But for “birthers” to accept the real reason why would be far too much to bear.
Boadicea's Chariot 
Christopher, nobody cares.
Not here, not anywhere, you may have a few sympathizers over on Myt but in the whole wide world nobody cares.
We all understand that Mr O’Bama is at the moment the president of the USA
I personally don’t like the man or his party, makes no diffs, nobody cares where he was born, what we do care about is where he’s taking us. When I say ‘us’ I mean all of us, the whole western world that to me is more important
Soutie: the purpose of this blog was not to dismiss Obama, it was to dismiss an asinine argument.
So are you saying that Obama is nevertheless eligible to be president, Christopher?
I regard any other view as just another conspiracy theory, but I was not aware of the tricky situation with regard to Hawaii.
Araminta: as long as the United States continues to occupy the Kingdom of Hawai’i and claim it as an inalienable part of the Union (th,e Americans and Chinese really ARE sounding a lot alike) then yes, he is perfectly eligible to serve as president. He is old enough and he is a natural-born US citizen. Those are the only two qualifications laid out in the constitution. The conspiracy theorists, who as usual grasp on the most tenuous of straws, could get their wish to get rid of him if they really wanted to do so. However, in doing so their usual claim to be insisting on “upholding the law of the land” would have to force them to concede that their country is not, in fact, behaving legally.
Aha, thanks Christopher, so it is most unlikely to happen then. Interesting.
I do love these tangled histories! Thanks for this information, Christopher.
Fascinating blog, Christopher.
The idea that the very existence of the USA as it stands is ‘illegal’ is highly unlikely to appeal to the overwrought right-wing ‘patriots’ who hate Obama. The notion that they could get rid of Obama by having Hawaii expelled from the Union seems fanciful at best.
That was the point of the blog, Brendan. They don’t want to admit that the United States is acting illegally in Hawai’i. Who knows, the United States could eventually be forced to withdraw from Hawai’i. Despite what it may like to think the USA is not above the law and that Hawai’i is moving to self-reliance and, perhaps, eventual independence is something which is not unknown in the Islands. (I personally support Hawai’ian independence, not on the grounds of Obama but on the grounds of principle)
Thanks, Christopher, I didn’t know that there was any kind of Hawaiian independence movement.
Hello Brendano. Nice to see you again hon
You too, Claire. I had a look at MyT earlier and saw that you posted ‘Sailing to Byzantium’ … a good one. I remember studying it at school. I don’t think Yeats can be bested.
Also noticed that Flavia commented … she might like this site (and it could do with another Dylan fan :-)). So, if it’s not considered A Grave Sin by The Powers That Be, you could perhaps mention it to her, if you wouldn’t mind …
Excuse me, Christopher.
Hey Brendano! Hope you had a good weekend. It’s one of my faves, is Sailing to Byzantium. I love Yeats; scarily beautiful stuff.
I may just mention it to Flavia then.
I’ve got third day of this job interview again tomorrow. SHouldn’t even be here actually since I should be preparing for it… 😉
What sort of job are you going for?
Made; teaching.
Haven’t read any of the other replys, but quite frankly what goes on, over there, the other side of the pond, is their concern. If they can have an Austrian muscle man as the head honcho of California, the country is running with dissadants and is out of control on so many levels and claims to be running the world, what difference does it make that this great man, and I really like him, has got into power and maybe, just maybe, can make a difference??
xxx
Brendano: the majority of Native Hawai’ians do not view themselves as “American” in any way, shape, or form. Many even use Kingdom of Hawai’i plates on their cars rather than the standard state issue. They still have royal families vying for the throne. More on that if you are interested.
Christopher … yes, it’s an interesting topic and one that’s little known in this part of the world, as far as I’m aware.
Yes Please.
Sorry to get back so late on this…
Hawai’i had two dynasties after unification — the House of Kamehameha and the House of Kalakaua.
The House of Kamehameha was descended from the first King of Hawai’i — Kamehameha Akahi who fought the wars of unification. (Bloody, long, and ultimately successful — the final islands to come under his rule were Kau’i and Ni’ihau in 1810 after the death of the king. This came as a result of an agreement made between the two rulers. The King of Kau’i knew that he could not withstand the forces of Kamehameha and Kamehameha was exhausted from the fighting and would accept a delayed victory if it came without any more blood shed) This dynasty would rule until 1872 when David Kalakaua was elected king. (This would prove to be extremely contentious. His rival, Queen Emma, the widow of Kamehameha IV, ran against him but was defeated. King David Kalakaua carried the vast majority of votes in 7 of the 8 island in the Kingdom. Queen Emma carried the vast majority of the votes on the main island, O’ahu, which also was home to a large majority of the Kingdom’s population and money) This was only settled by the intervention of the United States Marines who, amazingly enough, helped to put down the revolt by Queen Emma’s supporters. (In case a Hawai’ian monarch had not legally and officially selected an heir or heiress, there would be a vote on who would become the next monarch) There remain to-day descendants of the House of Kamehameha and the House of Kalakaua. Both claim to be the legitimate heirs to the throne. The most widely accepted Queen, Mahealani Kahau, is a member of the House of Kalakaua and is a descendent of David Kalakaua. This is, however, contentious as the last designated heiress, Princess Ka’iulani, passed away in 1899 at the age of 23. Although her aunt, the deposed Queen Lili’uokalani, selected an heir this did not receive formal acceptance as the United States had already invaded and officially taken over the territory of the Kingdom of Hawai’i. In any case, he died in 1908 — 9 years before his aunt. Ironically, despite the treatment meted her by the good ol’ law-abiding United States, she, Lili’uokalani, never hated the USA or the American people and prayed only that eventually wrongs would be righted and her people would once again be free of American occupation.
Thank you Christopher.
Little chance of that, I suspect.
Boadicea: given the current state of the USA in a generation or so the United States might not be able or willing to keep Hawai’i from going.
Trouble is Christopher, most countries seem to have a determination to hang on to every last bit of land that they once ‘owned’.
Boa: we all see how well that works out for them, don’t we? Russia lost much of its Czarist-Soviet Empire, Tibet and East Turkestan are still not any more loyal to China than they were 70 years ago, and Taiwan is continuing to exist just fine and well alone with no desire at all to “re-join the motherland”. As soon as a country becomes weak enough those who want their independence, more often than not, claim it.
I wonder how long China will allow Taiwan to go its own way.
Boadicea: the Taiwanese are being careful not to make any waves. The rhetoric of Chen Shui-ban appears to be limited to him personally. The ruling party at the moment are pro-China and the opposition, likely to win the next general election, are only pushing to maintain the status quo. China would, by launching an invasion, risk severe economic sanctions. Taiwan also happens to have a very competent, modern military with no other purpose than to defend Taiwan. It is well-armed and well-trained. Even if China might eventually prevail, the cost would be great. Taiwan is able to take out China’s major cities and would not hesitate to do so should China go insane. Taiwan also has easy access to large nuclear weapons — the United States has nuclear armed vessels in Taiwanese waters.
So we may confidently expect a fair bit of ‘sound and fury’ that will, in the end, come to nothing?
Boadicea: ultimately, yes. The Taiwanese control a significant portion of China’s economy — most electronics from MP3 players to computers assembled in China, for example, are done so by Taiwanese firms. China also has more than enough problems on the mainland to deal with — major water shortages, a rapidly ageing population, increasingly militant ethnic minorities, and major bubbles. Taiwan will likely end up like Gibraltar. A thorn in China’s ego, but one which is simply not worth the effort to pick out. My own opinion is that China is likely to go down a path similar to Japan’s… A lot of hype, a lot of money flowing in, but in the end everything was too much, too fast. The world to-day is not what it was 30 years ago. Then, there was general growth and prosperity. To-day there is a general sense of decline in developed economies and not enough balanced economic growth in developing economies to pick up the slack indefinitely. Evans-Pritchard usually does an excellent job on covering that.
China certainly has a heap of problems, how ever hard they try they – will not be able to keep the lid on their population for ever.