Difference between revisions of "Doesn't the '93 Apology Resolution trump the Morgan Report?"
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
Furthermore, as described by Senator Inoyue, the Apology Resolution was mere a "simple apology", and has a disclaimer at the end in Section 3: | Furthermore, as described by Senator Inoyue, the Apology Resolution was mere a "simple apology", and has a disclaimer at the end in Section 3: | ||
| − | :Section 3. Disclaimer. Nothing in this Joint Resolution is intended to serve as a settlement of any claims against the United States. | + | :''Section 3. Disclaimer. Nothing in this Joint Resolution is intended to serve as a settlement of any claims against the United States.'' |
As a token resolution, with no evidence presented, no debate on the merits, and an explicit disclaimer of its use in claims against the U.S., Public Law 103-150 cannot possibly be considered as an official finding of the Congress that trumps the Morgan Report. If anything, it merely illustrates how stealth legislation can be passed through Congress regardless of the merits. | As a token resolution, with no evidence presented, no debate on the merits, and an explicit disclaimer of its use in claims against the U.S., Public Law 103-150 cannot possibly be considered as an official finding of the Congress that trumps the Morgan Report. If anything, it merely illustrates how stealth legislation can be passed through Congress regardless of the merits. | ||
For a more thorough review of the historical inaccuracies of U.S. Public Law 103-150, please read [http://www.hawaiireporter.com/file.aspx?Guid=aefef5f6-a533-486a-9459-691138355dd1 Hawaii Divided Against Itself Cannot Stand], by Bruce Fein. | For a more thorough review of the historical inaccuracies of U.S. Public Law 103-150, please read [http://www.hawaiireporter.com/file.aspx?Guid=aefef5f6-a533-486a-9459-691138355dd1 Hawaii Divided Against Itself Cannot Stand], by Bruce Fein. | ||
Revision as of 21:21, 20 January 2006
The 1993 Apology Resolution, U.S. Public Law 103-150, was voted on with no debate over the merits of the wheras clauses, no presentation of any evidence, and cannot be considered as a decision against the Morgan Report - in fact, had the Morgan Report been available in 1993 to the Congress, the Apology Resolution surely would not have passed.
Furthermore, as described by Senator Inoyue, the Apology Resolution was mere a "simple apology", and has a disclaimer at the end in Section 3:
- Section 3. Disclaimer. Nothing in this Joint Resolution is intended to serve as a settlement of any claims against the United States.
As a token resolution, with no evidence presented, no debate on the merits, and an explicit disclaimer of its use in claims against the U.S., Public Law 103-150 cannot possibly be considered as an official finding of the Congress that trumps the Morgan Report. If anything, it merely illustrates how stealth legislation can be passed through Congress regardless of the merits.
For a more thorough review of the historical inaccuracies of U.S. Public Law 103-150, please read Hawaii Divided Against Itself Cannot Stand, by Bruce Fein.