If Person 1 asks if a copy of a received document is the true copy of a document in state files, and Person 2 says that the information on the received document matches the information in the state files, that is not the same thing, right?
Person 2 is getting around stating that the received document is an exact facsimile of a state-issued document or not, by leaping directly to what's contained in the document's lines. Would that be a correct assumption?
Would that not raise suspicions about the authenticity of the document itself, regardless of the information contained on the document?
Furthermore, Article IV Section 1 says:
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
Arizona should have been given direct access to the original public records, absent Congressional action. Hawaii's state privacy laws do not supercede Arizona's Constitutional "full faith and credit" access to Hawaii's records. And yet, Hawaii turned away Arizona's legitimate officers who went to Hawaii to inspect the actual public document.
Does that look like the actions of a state with nothing to hide?
-PJ
So as I understand it, "full faith and credit" means Arizona has to accept that Hawaii's laws and judicial decisions apply in Hawaii. I don't know how far that applies to public records -- there are arguments to be made on both sides -- but Arizona can't use the clause to undercut Hawaii's account of what its own records say. The clause would tend to support Hawaii more than Arizona in this case. More here.