“The full faith and credit clause appears to allow Hawaii’s courts and legislative bodies to do that ~ use subtle nuance ~ and make the rest of us live with it.”
Hawaii’s courts do not trump Articles of the Constitution. Neither do Federal courts. Federal courts can declare anything they want, but that does not make it true.
The “Full Faith and Credit clause” IS in an Article of the Constitution: Article IV, Section 1.
It is not about Hawai’i courts nor the federal courts, it’s in the original wording of the Constitution of the United States.
From your point of view, which branch of government should get to decide whether a candidate or a president has met the natural born citizen requirements of Article II, Section 1?
It sounds as though you are offering me the fallacy of false choice. (Which of three branches when the choice is not limited to just them, or just one of them.)
It is the responsibility of all Americans to insure compliance with our laws. It OUGHT to have started with the Democrat party vetting his credentials, but as they are basically anti-American lunatics who will comply with no inconvenient law if they can get away with it, it is safe to say that that particular check on law breaking isn't any sort of impediment to lawlessness at all.
The next check SHOULD have been the Agents of each state tasked with confining eligibility for elections. The State election bureaucrats. They should have KNOWN what the requirements were, and they should have INSISTED on proof that he met them. They did not.
The NEXT check should have been the Electoral college who ALSO should have KNOWN what the requirements were, and insisted on Proof that he met them.
The NEXT check should have been both the Congress and the Courts. Again, they should have KNOWN what the requirements were and they should have REQUIRED proof that he met them.
Finally, it is the consent of the Governed. The larger body of American people who by passivity concede his authority and legitimacy over them or by opposing challenge it.
Let us not even speak of the role of the 4rth estate who were in fact collaborators with the usurpation of legitimate governance. But THEY should have sounded the alarm among the people at a time well before the Democrat Primaries.
Now we must go through the hard slog of attempts through a thoroughly frightened court, and efforts to inform public opinion without the Megaphone of the Media and Entertainment industries.
No state would refuse to accept Hawaii's document. Hawaii just insists on producing a document which doesn't prove anything, while pointing at rules saying they don't have to produce the real document in their possession.
As I keep insisting, Constitutional requirements are not subject to laws by congress or states, or "rules" created by the federal government courts. The ONLY thing constitutional articles are subject to is an Amendment. Unless you pull out one of those, you need to stop talking about rules inferior to the law they wish to circumvent.