Replies

Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, a birth certificate is a “self-authenticating document.” (Federal Rules of Evidence Rule 902). If a birth record introduced as evidence has the state seal and the signature of the authorizing official, it’s good to go in any American court of law.

Federal Rules are Post Constitution. The REQUIREMENTS of the constitution are not subject to subsequent "rules." If the Constitution requires proof, while federal rules only require a stamp from the state, it is the federal rules that must go begging because they do not meet the requirements of Constitutional law.

A court cannot set it's policies as superior to the document which created the court.

Federal Rules are Post Constitution. The REQUIREMENTS of the constitution are not subject to subsequent “rules.” If the Constitution requires proof, while federal rules only require a stamp from the state, it is the federal rules that must go begging because they do not meet the requirements of Constitutional law.

A court cannot set it’s policies as superior to the document which created the court.

Obviously the Constitution says nothing about “proof.” If it did, Zero would not be in the Oval office today.
Zero, having studied constitutional law at Harvard found a constitutional loophole and walked right through it. It’s what liberals do.
The Federal Rules of Evidence have been the law of the land as passed by Congress and signed by the President since 1975 (Gerald Ford). They have been upheld as constitutional by the US Supreme Court. They were written by a committee appointed by US Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren.
Implementation of the self-authentification rule can be challenged in any particular legal action but that rarely happens.
What the state of Hawaii confirms as a certified copy of an original birth record is highly likely to be stipulated as an authentic birth record in any court of law under Article IV, Section 1 of the US Constitution.
Article II Section 1 does not take precedence over Article IV, Section 1. They are co-equal elements of the Constitution.
Article IV Section 1 is the way of implementing Article II, Section 1.

Rules of evidence are one thing. Congress acted in 1996 to replace those rules (regarding birth certificates) with a statute.

Now you can store a record electronically and that's as real as carbon smears on a piece of paper ~ as far as the law is concerned.

So, let's look at federal law (which sets a performance standard for birth certificates, et al) ~ ".....(II) whose birth is registered in the United States; and ``(B) that-- ``(i) is a copy, issued by a State or local authorized custodian of record, of an original certificate of birth issued by such custodian of record; or ``(ii) was issued by a State or local authorized custodian of record and was produced from birth records maintained by such custodian of record.

You can find that in:

http://law.justia.com/codes/us/title5/5usc301.html

Carefully notice the phrase above "from birth records maintained by such custodian of record". That allows them to maintain a totally digital or microfiche library of "records" ~ and just dispense with the paper produced on the date of birth.

Whatever Federal Rules of Evidence said before 1996, this law is the current standard.

Are you referring to this part of the Constitution: "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."

It clearly says that Congress can write laws to prescribe the way the "records" can be proved. Clearly that is a Constitutional provision, and clearly it states Congress can pass laws about this question.

So, what is your complaint? Is it that you don't agree that this provision should be in the Constitution? Or do you have something else in mind.