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.
Obviously the Constitution says nothing about “proof.” If it did, Zero would not be in the Oval office today. It is axiomatic, just as Police force powers are axiomatic. Nowhere in the Constitution does it mention Police powers for the executive branch. They are understood to be there none the less.
The very act of making a requirement implies the necessity to verify that it is met. Axiomatic.