But that doesn’t mean that another state could not require more proof of the facts claimed on the BC, or more proof that the official BC was not tampered with.
Actually, that's exactly what it does mean. It means that one state cannot subject to its own scrutiny the official acts of another state.
The courts have already indicated that they are not going to carry the ball on this issue. The federal legislative branch (House or Senate) has the power to subpoena the materials that will clarify things, but if they decline to use their power to do so, the rest of us are just sh*t out of luck. A final possibility would be action by the Hawaiian state leglislature, but that doesn't seem likely either.
It really is all up to Boehner and Issa. If they feel that Obama was born in Hawaii as the state of Hawaii claims, then that will be the end of the matter. At some point we have to assume that maybe they know what they're talking about and we're chasing an invisible rabbit.
If Boehner and Issa don't act, then this will be remembered like the second gunman on the grassy knoll.
You said: “Actually, that’s exactly what it does mean. It means that one state cannot subject to its own scrutiny the official acts of another state.”
A forgery is not an official act of any state. It is a violation of the laws of the state.
If somebody at Nebraska’s DOH started cranking out “official” birth certificates for people who don’t even exist, would every other state have to accept those BC’s without question? Suppose the Nebraska DOH claims that 5 billion children were born in Nebraska hospitals in 2010. Would the other states have to accept all 5 billion birth certificates? Would there be ANYBODY who would be authorized to question the lawfulness of those 5 billion birth certificates?
If so, then government bureaucrats are and always will be laws unto themselves. That is SO FAR from the government accountability that the Constitution is about.