[x]

It seems to me that the state of Hawaii's argument rests on the notion that the birth cert is tantamount to medical records and therefore covered by confidentiality laws. I think this absurd on its face.

Is that true about their argument, or is it just your surmise?

I'd be inclined to think that "state's rights"or the separation of powers may be at work here. If you favor an activist judiciary overturning state regulations, fine. That seems to be the way things are going. But should that be the case?

If we are going to go down that road, does "the public" really need to know whose parents were legally married and whose weren't?

Part of the problem is that Hawaii did allow people who weren't born in the state to get birth certifications. If they didn't, if that abuse weren't a possibility, would there still be a case here?

[cake_crumb]

Ultimately, the decision to show the damned papers belongs to Obama. It’s his birth certificate, he can show it to whomever he wishes.

[dusttoyou]

I see where the State’s Rights issue can come up against the situation. It is not nor should not be the State’s duty to issue any record to which a party objects.
The true responsibility is not for anyone “other” than obama to prove he is or is not elegible under the Constitution, it solely rests with him to issue proof if is of question by any citizen. If Mr. Obama refuses to produces or if can not issue unrefutible proof he meets the requitements of the Constitution, then he must not be formally elected or sworn in.