In 1993, when Congress (or rather, about five members of an otherwise fairly uninterested U.S. Senate) debated the so-called "Apology bill" for Native Hawaiians, Sen. Daniel Inouye argued it was merely a "simple apology" designed to set the nation's historical facts in order.

What Inouye was focused on were arguments that the Apology bill was the first step toward independence for Hawai'i. Nothing, he said, could be further from the truth.

That may be so. But it is now abundantly clear the Apology bill is far more than a mere token of remorse. It is, according to the state Supreme Court in its Jan. 31 opinion on a lawsuit involving ceded lands, the very law of the land.

Put it this way: The Apology resolution is the controlling law when it comes to ongoing questions about whether the overthrow of the monarchy was illegal, whether Hawaiians are due restitution for that overthrow and whether ceded lands (property that went from the Hawaiian government and crown to the U.S. and then to the state of Hawai'i) should be held in impregnable trust until that restitution debate is settled.

To each point, the legal answer, as declared by our highest court, is "yes."

Now, it is important to note that the court did not attempt to get involved in what restitution should look like. That's a political question.

Hawaiian claims arising out of the overthrow might be settled with a dollar and a hug. But don't count on it. The real game here is land, or constructive use of it.

Opponents of this process argue it is unconstitutional to transfer assets from public control to one specific group on the basis of race. The state Supreme Court didn't get into that. It simply said that, as recognized by federal law (the apology resolution has the force of law, it says), there was once a Hawaiian kingdom that controlled these lands, the kingdom was done away with illegally, and now, something must be done about the matter.

Just what that "something" is is up to the politicians to decide. Gov. Linda Lingle and the state Office of Hawaiian Affairs offer a clue with their proposed settlement of back claims for ceded lands revenues that involves both cash and ceded lands being given to OHA.

At first blush, it seems odd that OHA would argue forcefully against any alienation of ceded lands while at the same time happily taking some out of the trust for its own use. The answer given is that the guiding principle is: No alienation of ceded lands unless they go to us. If it benefits Hawaiians, no harm done.

As the political process moves forward, politicians can no longer claim there is no legal foundation for them to act.

Jerry Burris' column appears Wednesdays in this space. See his blog at blogs.honoluluadvertiser.com/akamaipolitics. Reach him at jrryburris@yahoo.com.