I think I agree with that statement as far is it is limited to effect in Hawaii, but we're now talking about those records' effect in Arizona on Arizona law.
I know it's never been tested this way, but the Article speaks to how those records would be "proved," that is, Congressional action to the manner of proving. So the Constitution did not automatically imply that a state was forced to take another state's word on the matter.
Arizona could have demanded first-hand proof by visually inspecting Hawaii's records, if only to force Congress to exercise its power to "prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved."
-PJ
Congress has basically already addressed this through the Federal Rules of Evidence. It says that a certified record is considered self-authenticating if the custodian of the document certifies that it is a correct copy of the original record ... and of course, such a document must actually be submitted to a court or proper legal body where it can be inspected for authenticity. It’s no surprise Obama has never submitted ANY of his alleged birth records in a court of law.