Not sure what this has to do with the point being discussed, but Hawaii did not issue a verification of anything. They simply repeated that the information was consistent with whatever information had been placed in their files.
This is not any sort of verification because ever opportunity was used to avoid stating that this was a true and correct copy of the original information.
As a possible adoption and possible birth outside of Hawaii were some of the things needing to be understood, nothing Hawaii said lent any clarity or resolution to either concern.
As I already said, in more than half the states there were lawsuits challenging Obama’s natural born citizen status.
In many states the law does not give the Secretary of State any investigative or enforcement power. Whoever a political party designates as its nominee must be placed on the ballot. It is then up to the other candidates to challenge credentials of an opponent.
So here is where you try to weasel out of the point. You have been caught with examples where States used their power to toss a candidate off the ballot for not meeting the requirements, but you try to say they are helpless to do so unless challenged by another candidate.
It reminds me of that Alice in Wonderland comment from the White Queen. “Sometimes I believe in as many as six impossible things before breakfast.”
Your hair splitting and lawyerly obfuscation might work in a court room where procedure is more important than results, but this is the real world, and we are not taken in by such sham arguments.
I think that public officials have a duty to enforce State Law, Federal law, and Constitutional law, but you'll never guess where a certain member of the supreme court decided otherwise and why. It has had bad ramifications for the country ever since.
Both Secretaries of State who asked for Letters of Verification from Hawaii said that the letters satisfied their need for clarification and both then approved Obama for their states’ ballots, in states that Mitt Romney won by landslides.
The letter for Arizona’s Secretary of State verified 12 specific data points on the Certificate of Live Birth which the Secretary of State had inquired about: place of birth, birth name, birth certificate registration number, time of birth, name of hospital, age of father, birthplace of father, age of mother, birthplace of mother, date of signature of parent, date of signature of attending physician, and date of signature of local registrar.
Neither Secretary of State asked the Hawaii Registrar to verify whether there was a “true and correct copy.” But the Hawaii Registrar is available to be deposed or subpoenaed to testify, so those follow-up questions could have been asked at any time. They haven’t been. However Letters of Verification are issued for the data on the ORIGINAL vital record, not for the information on copies of the original document. since both Secretaries of State did attach copies with their requests, the Registrar also verified that the data on the copies matched the data on the original.
An additional Certified Letter of Verification was sent by Hawaii to U.S. District Court Judge Henry Wingate in Mississippi but in nearly three years after being taken under advisement, Judge Wingate has done nothing with that letter or with that eligibility challenge lawsuit.