Secretaries of State were SUED over this issue in Alabama (McInnish v Chapman), Ohio (Daniels v Husted), California (Dummett v Bowen), Georgia (Farrar v Kemp), Vermont (Paige v Condos) and Mississippi (Taitz v Hosemann, et. al.)
In Kansas and Arizona, Secretaries of State took the additional step of having Obama’s credentials verified by the state of Hawaii.
When you are sued, you understand why you are being sued.
Article IV, Section 1 of the Constitution of the United States says “Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, RECORDS, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.”
The state of Hawaii since 2008 has issued 8 verifications for Obama’s birth vital record. Under the Full Faith and Credit Clause there is nothing that Secretaries of State or judges can do.
Here’s just one of the verifications, and I intentionally pickd the shortest one: July 27, 2009
STATEMENT BY HEALTH DIRECTOR CHIYOME FUKINO, M.D.
“I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawaii State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawai‘i State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawai‘i and is a natural-born American citizen.”
Yielding the ridiculous rulings that secretaries of state don't have to do their jobs unless they feel like it.
In Kansas and Arizona, Secretaries of State took the additional step of having Obama’s credentials verified by the state of Hawaii.
They did not. They merely solicited and received a non-determinative statement that reduces to "no you can't see it, but take our word for it, there is some sort of record in our files."
No proof, merely state officials being cagey while trying to pass off obfuscation as actual evidence.
Article IV, Section 1 of the Constitution of the United States says “Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, RECORDS, and judicial proceedings of every other state.
That isn't the issue. The state didn't submit a record for which any full faith and credit question could be brought to bear. They did not submit and attest to an original birth certificate.
Letters, statements, etc. are not substitutes for proof. It is tantamount to offering a plumbers license when you need to see a medical license. They are the WRONG documents. The correct ones exist, but the officials refuse to show them. You don't have a "full faith and credit" issue until the correct documents are shown, but not respected. That is not what has happened here.
As a matter of fact, as an argument, the appeal to "full faith and credit" in lieu of the CORRECT document is nothing but a liars tactic, only intending to confuse, not clarify the issue.
The stubborn fact remains, the only thing that comes close to being actual proof is an original birth certificated witnessed, signed, dated correctly, and attested to being THE ORIGINAL by the responsible state officials. (not an abstract thereof.)