re: >>20375491 (pb) "A court in Hawaii has now declared itself to be above the United States Supreme Court"
The quotation seems to imply that their court thinks that state constitutions must ratify the provisions of the federal constitution. This mistaken idea is probably an outcome of the fact that many state constitutions reiterate the 2nd Amendment in their own constitutional language, sometimes providing better protection. This brings to mind the unconstitutional meddling of state governments in the regulation of national elections, thinking that state electoral prescriptions supervene over the language of the federal constitution.
But this seems mainly the product of an entitled status, and Hawaii has been Democrat for a long time. And the "originals" (dare I call them "natives"?) have a grudge against the mainland U.S. as being a plague of exploiters, carpet-baggers, and squatters. It may not have been prudent national policy to annex an island nation (monarchy) far from the U.S. heartland. (An arrangement such as with Puerto Rico might have been better, but the exigencies of World War II probably obliterated that possibility.)