Well yeah, it does. Article IV, Section 2: "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States." What you're claiming is that people born in the state of Hawaii had to meet qualifications for citizenship that citizens of no other state had to. Completely unconstitutional.
Again, it is the fact that Hawaii had only been a state for 2 years, and had different laws vs. the rest of the US in 1961 that makes this an issue.
It is your misreading of the facts of the matter that make it an issue. Federal law applies to citizenship, not state law. And the Constitution states that any person born in the U.S. is a citizen of the U.S. AND of the state he is residing in. Period.
OK, now we are completely back to where we started, are we not? I honestly don’t feel like going round and round on this particular point. I do NOT believe I have mis-understood the laws on the books in 1961 - even though I DO understand where you are coming from as it regards the 14th Amendment. I have probably not explained my position clearly as I’ve been going from topic to topic in this thread alone...
I will research this again on my own, and I will definitely keep in mind your position on this as I do. I will readily admit that I am relying on memory from discussions on this topic that took place months ago here at FR, and again I don’t think I’m explaining myself very clearly, but there is a chance I am remembering some specific points wrong as well (in regards to it applying specifically to Hawaiian births). If I do run across information that solidly affirms either of our positions, I will post the relevant links.
I do appreciate you taking the time to discuss this with me, though... [It’s so refreshing to actually have a good conversation, and explore issues with someone who doesn’t agree with me without being called names unlike when trying to “debate” a liberal! LOL]