The Absurd Report

The state of Hawaii has a legal basis to investigate and report on whether the birth certificate of Barack Hussein Obama II posted on his website is valid or not. The State of Hawaii has said that only Obama or a family member can request a birth certificate. However, checking for error or fraud in a birth certificate used by Obama to obtain a benefit is something the state of Hawaii can do spontaneously.

The two primary purposes of not letting anyone get anyone’s birth certificate are privacy and to prevent fraud. Since Obama has posted the purported certificate, he has waived privacy. Since the state of Hawaii has already expressed the view that the birth certificate posted on-line lacks the seal and signature that is standard, they have a basis to suspect fraud.
[...]
Preventing fraud means when there is evidence of fraud its investigated. By not investigating evidence of fraud, the state actually emboldens potential fraudsters to engage in the type of fraud that Obama’s campaign is suspected of by some.

If the b.c. on the Obama website is fake, then there is likely fraud not just error. This is evidence tending in that direction.

The state of Hawaii does not need to prove fraud to correct error. If a b.c. is purported to be authentic in a public manner on a website and it lacks a seal that is a basis for the state of Hawaii to correct error. It has a public interest in doing so. The state of Hawaii has an interest in showing that it polices the use of its b.c.’s and prevents incorrect ones being used to get a job, security clearance, or for some other purpose.

The US government also has standing to investigate the use of a possibly fraudulent birth certificate or one that has errors. The federal elections commission presumably can investigate whether a person is eligible for office or uses documents that contain errors to establish eligibility.

Hawaii has standing to protect its own voters, ballot and those of other states. Voters in other states have standing to request an investigation.

Where there is damage, the state of Hawaii can correct error. The many calls to the office in Hawaii show that the public feels damaged by the possibly false b.c. Damage plus error gives the state standing to investigate and publish its results.
[...]
At a certain level of evidence of damage or error, the state of Hawaii has discretion to investigate. At a higher level, it has an obligation to investigate and publish its findings. That level may have been reached. As an administrator of a presidential election operating under the 14th Amendment and with an obligation to other states that are co-administrators of the election including as operators and members of the Electoral College, the state of Hawaii has substantial obligations to voters in its own state, in other states, and to other states.

In the federal system, the states are given duties. Holding elections is one of the duties they are given, including federal elections, including president. They have to see that all laws are enforced in those elections, including what is specified in the U.S. Constitution. Because Hawaii has the b.c. of Barack Obama according to Obama’s web site, it falls to Hawaii to check the b.c.

This is an obligation it has under the U.S. Constitution as an election administrator, and under federal supremacy, and under the Constitution directly to see that Obama meets the requirements written in the U.S. Constitution. When state officials take an oath to the Constitution of the United States, they take on that obligation to make sure that anyone running for president of the United States meets all qualifications in the U.S. Constitution.

Because Hawaii is the alleged holder of the Obama b.c., it has the obligation to check its original. It has that obligation since its own officials have determined that Obama has posted a b.c. on his web page lacking the seal and signature. Hawaii has that duty as a direct duty under the U.S. Constitution. That preempts state law on b.c. privacy.
[...]
There need not be fraud. The same arguments apply to error. Innocent parties that may be harmed by error have standing to seek correction or confirmation. That is a right they have in state and federal court. The state of Hawaii has a direct obligation under the U.S. Constitution to avoid error or fraud in this case.
[...]
The above is hypotheses, speculation, or opinion. This is draft and preliminary. This is subject to revision. Comments and corrections welcome. Please restate statements as questions. No criticism is made of any person. All other disclaimers apply.