State statutes and state administrative regulations often give elected and appointed government officials considerable freedom and latitude to act in accordance with their own judgement.
However the actions of a public official can be challenged in court. There have been eleven lawsuits challenging the actions of Hawaii officials concerning the birth records of Barack Obama. The courts have upheld the judgements and rulings of Hawaii governmental officials in every instance.
As for Secretary of State Bennett in Arizona, the fact that an Arizona court had already ruled two months earlier that Obama was a natural born citizen BEFORE Bennett received his Letter of a Verification from Hawaii probably influenced his attitude toward this issue considerably. Bennett checked into Obama’s birth vital record at the request of constituents from the city of Surprise, Arizona’s Tea Party chapter.
Allen v Obama, Arizona Superior Court Judge Richard E. Gordon: “Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise.”—Pima County Superior Court, Tuscon, Arizona, March 7, 2012
How can any court make a ruling as to law without having any legally-determined birth facts for Obama? Onaka’s disclosure puts egg all over the faces of any judge who has “ruled” anything about Obama’s eligibility. There are no legally-determined birth facts so we have no idea where, when, or to whom this guy was born. All of which are critical to eligibility. Onaka’s disclosure shows that the burden of proof is on Obama, not on those who challenge the Hawaii birth claims. That turns all the judicial opining upside-down and shows the judges to be gullible morons.