Talk:Constitution of Hawaii
|WikiProject Hawaii||(Rated Start-class, High-importance)|
|WikiProject Law||(Rated Start-class)|
“A few constitutions have become historically infamous like the Bayonet Constitution of 1887 which stripped native Hawaiians of their rights...and the constitution of 1978 that...declared the Hawaiian language to be the official language of the state.”
- This sentence seems strange to me. Is the constitution of 1978 really considered infamous? That judgment would seem to conflict with the article 1978 Hawaii State Constitutional Convention which describes the 1978 constitution quite positively.
Mateo SA 23:16, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Hawai'i or Hawaii
Do you put a apostrophe in it or not? Sometimes it spelled like that in the article and sometimes it isn't. I didn't want to change it because i wasn't sure.--Onceonthisisland 12:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Bill of Rights is Wrong
I don't have time to change it but I think this article uses an old version of the bill of rights. There are actually 24 sections and the numbering has also changed a little bit. Here is the link to the current Bill of Right http://hawaii.gov/lrb/con/conart1.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 07:14, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Are all these "various legal documents" really independent and distinct from one another? Some appear to be very closely linked. According to http://hawaii.gov/lrb/con/ the 1950 Constitution (as updated by conventions in 1959, 1968 and 1978) is the basis for the current state government. The earlier documents may be of historical interest, but aren't recognized as operating today. The article should clarify (if possible). If the 1950 Constitution was influenced or based on material from one of the previous issues, that would be useful to mention, but it seems like they are in a completely different ballpark.
NPOV dispute - Introductory Paragraph
The introductory paragraph contains a few non-NPOV statements. Specifically,
- "A few constitutions have become historically infamous like the Bayonet Constitution of 1887 which stripped King Kalakaua of some decision making abilities without concurrence of his cabinet, and Liliuokalani's attempt at power grabbing with her proposed constitution of 1893 that was never officially promulgated but instead inflamed businessmen to accelerate their plans for the overthrow of the monarchy."
The term historically infamous is an unnecessary value statement and does not seem necessary in the context of this specific article. Further, the word 'infamous' is not found anywhere on the page for the Bayonet Constitution of 1887. Unless a historian of constitutions can be cited to describe these constitutions as historically infamous, I would suggest they instead be deemed 'notable'. Another user, Mateo SA, has pointed out a similar opinion of the usage of this term in the article.
The term power grabbing is also blatantly non-NPOV. Again this term does not show up anywhere in the article for the Proposed 1893 Constitution of the Kingdom of Hawaii. This, along with the later use of the word inflamed seems to be an attempt to lay the overthrow of the monarchy at the feet of Liliuokalani, a decidedly non-NPOV sentiment which clashes with the description in the article on Proposed 1893 Constitution of the Kingdom of Hawaii. I propose making the following change: "and the proposed 1893 Constitution of the Kingdom of Hawaii, a replacement of the Bayonet Constitution of 1887, promulgated by Liliuokalani, which set off a chain of events that eventually resulted in the overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom." This language more closely matches that of the article on the 1893 Constitution.
- "Other documents became famous for more positive reasons such as the constitution of 1978 that created the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, now under scrutiny as being Unconstitutional as a discriminating race based construct, and declared the Hawaiian language to be one of the official languages of the state."
The words famous and positive here are non-NPOV. I suggest beginning this sentence with "Other notable documents are the Constitution of 1978..." I've also added a Citation Needed to the claim that OHA is under scrutiny for being a "discriminating race-based construct". As far as I'm aware, there are no ongoing cases before a Federal judge which seek to determine the constitutionality of OHA. If readers want to know more about OHA, they can visit it's page. There's no reason to include this information, especially on a (mostly) unrelated page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anammox2017 (talk • contribs) 18:48, 16 March 2017 (UTC)