Apology Resolution facts for kids

United States Public Law 103-150, also known as the Apology Resolution, is an official statement from the U.S. Congress. It was passed in 1993. This resolution says that the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii happened with the help of U.S. officials and citizens. It also states that Native Hawaiian people never gave up their right to govern their own lands to the United States. This resolution has been important for the Hawaiian sovereignty movement and has caused a lot of discussion.

The U.S. Congress passed the resolution on November 23, 1993. It was signed into law by President of the United States Bill Clinton on the same day. In the Senate, 65 senators voted for it and 34 voted against it. In the House, it passed easily. Senators Daniel Akaka and Daniel Inouye from Hawaii, both Democrats, first proposed it.

Why the Apology Resolution Was Supported

Historical Evidence for the Apology

The Apology Resolution is largely based on the Blount Report. This report was put together in 1893, soon after the Hawaiian monarchy was overthrown. The Blount Report strongly supported the Hawaiian Queen and her followers. It officially criticized the U.S. role in the overthrow.

President Grover Cleveland also supported the Queen strongly. He made official statements that agreed with the Blount Report. These statements from the U.S. Government are seen as proof for the claims made in the Apology Resolution.

Similarities with Native Americans

Even though the histories of Native Hawaiians and Native Americans are different, many people feel that Native Hawaiians have faced similar unfair treatment from the U.S. Government. The Apology Resolution is seen as a way to recognize these past wrongs.

Some people also see it as a step towards recognizing Native Hawaiians as an indigenous people. This would help them keep certain legal rights based on their heritage. Others hope it could lead to some form of payment or repair for past injustices.

In 2009, the U.S. Congress passed a similar resolution for Native Americans. It apologized for "a long history of official depredations and ill-conceived policies by the Federal Government regarding Indian tribes."

Why the Apology Resolution Was Opposed

Debates Over History

The Apology Resolution was based on the Blount Report from 1893. However, another official report, the Morgan Report, followed in 1894. The Morgan Report, after public hearings, found that the Blount Report was wrong about many facts.

Critics of the Apology Resolution point out that the Blount Report was done in secret. Witnesses were not questioned thoroughly or under oath. They say this is a good reason to question the conclusions of the Apology Resolution. Even President Grover Cleveland, who first supported the Queen, changed his mind after seeing the Morgan Report. He then recognized the new government in Hawaii as legitimate.

Bruce Fein, a lawyer, has also raised many arguments against the historical accuracy of the Apology Resolution.

Claims the Bill Was Rushed

Some people have criticized the 1993 Apology Resolution for how quickly it was passed. In the Senate, there was only one hour of debate, with only five senators speaking. It passed the House even faster, with no debate or objections.

Senator Inouye, one of the sponsors, said at the time that the resolution had nothing to do with the "status of Native Hawaiians." However, later laws, like the Akaka Bill, have used the Apology Resolution as a reason for their existence. Some people see this as going against what Senator Inouye said in 1993.

Senators Slade Gorton and Hank Brown voted against the bill in 1993. More recently, they have called it "historical revisionism." They wrote an article saying the Apology Bill was not historically accurate.

What the Resolution Legally Means

The Apology Resolution has many "whereas" clauses, which are like introductory statements. However, these statements do not create new laws or rights. Legal experts say that only the parts of a law that come after the "Resolved" section have legal power. The "whereas" clauses can help explain what a law means, but they don't make new rules.

The Apology Resolution itself states that it does not settle any claims. Its sponsors also said it was just "a simple resolution of apology" and would not change the status of Native Hawaiians.

The U.S. Supreme Court looked at the legal effect of the Apology Resolution in 2009. The Court decided that the "whereas" clauses do not have any binding legal effect. They do not give any new rights or make any legal findings for Native Hawaiian claims. The Court also confirmed that the resolution does not change who legally owns the public lands in Hawaii.