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.
I have covered the "full faith and credit" argument with others. I point out that Hawaii HAS the document needed to establish legitimacy, but THEY refuse to produce it because of subjective Bureaucratic rules that they imposed on themselves. Other states are not refusing to accept the document, Hawaii is refusing to produce it.
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.
A provision of an Article cannot be amended by Congress. If proof is an implied requirement of the Article, Legal obfuscation cannot trump the document that created the Legal system.
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.
My complaint is that we have no manner of verifying what is the ACTUAL truth, rather we are told to rely on Hawaiian Bureaucrats opinions of a document they won't let anyone see, and they won't declare to be a true copy of the original.
For the sake of argument, let's say Obama was born in Canada. (White Rock B.C.) Let's further say that upon his grandmother finding out he was born in Canada, she decided to go to the Department of Health and tell them he was born at home in Hawaii, but the mother is too sick to bring him in, and by the way she is the Vice President of the Bank of Honolulu. (Her intent being to secure US citizenship for her grandson.)
Let's say that the DOH official had her write a statement to the effect that he was born at home, and that the DOH official then typed it out on the same page. They both sign it and it gets filed.
Suppose now some years later when Soetoro Marries Stanley Ann, that he adopts Barry. The Judge orders the creation of a new birth certificate under the name Barry Soetoro, and seals the original.
Suppose now that later, Barry Soetoro, who has been going as Barack Obama because he thinks it makes him sound more African, and more exotic, decides to get his birth certificate amended for political reasons, and gets a Judge to agree to do it.
At what point will anyone in Hawaii let us know that his official legal documents are covering up the fact of his ineligibility, but due to the privacy requirements of Hawaii law (and their lack of understanding regarding "natural born citizen" meaning) they refuse to "OUT" him as a fraud?
They won't even sign a piece of paper saying that we are seeing the ORIGINAL document. They won't even acknowledge that it hasn't been tampered with by a judge.
How can anyone accept something as proof that cannot actually be verified?