If he’s ordered to show it by the court, the Executive Branch has nothing to do with it. The main question, however much credit you want to give him, is why doesn’t he simply show it? Why the need to be forced to do so in the first place?
Obviously more “pain” to show it than to not show it.
And that is a good point. I do also see the validity of the argument which says that an official birth certificate was released. That certificate is the standard one for the state and would stand for proof of birth for a passport, etc.
Bear in mind I do not believe that the one released is a forgery. Certainly, those that do see this in an entirely different light.
There are some very interesting Constitutional issues on all sides here. If the state has a statute which prohibits the release of the vault certificate (which it seems to have, I have been doing some research in some of my databases) then there are issues with the court requiring it. Sufficient damage has not been proven yet, which will be a condition of any case, as well.
I know, I know, you think there is damage, you think there is evidence you think the courts are politically biased. I am NOT dismissing that. I just want to point out the potentially precedent setting nature of some of this and some of the larger, less obvious issues that the courts will consider.
This is not presented as an argument, simply a bit of edification.