The approved method for a state to prove an official document is to apply a seal and the signature of an appropriate official. Once this is done, the document is proved as official and must be accepted as authentic by all Federal courts, and courts of all other states.The founders were not idiots. The document certified must be a *VALID* document of the type being sought. I believe the commonly used legal language is a "true and correct copy of the original."
The FOUNDERS were not idiots and adopted a firm league of friendship and cooperation with no executive or judicial branch.
Artcles 2 and 3 of the Articles of Confederation provided:
II. Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.III. The said States hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other, against all force offered to, or attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretense whatever.
For the Founders, each state was sovereign and independent, and there was no Federal judiciary branch to rule upon the authenticity of any sovereign state document.
The Articles of Confederation, Article 4 provided:
Full faith and credit shall be given in each of these States to the records, acts, and judicial proceedings of the courts and magistrates of every other State.
The FOUNDERS created no method of challenging an official State document whatever. As each State retained its sovereignty and independence, each held sovereign immunity from external legal challenge to what it asserted as its official records.
The FRAMERS were not idiots. Each state ratified a clause for proving a state document that barred legal challenge in any Federal or other State court. A document certified by one state cannot have its authenticity challenged in any Federal or other State court.
Article IV, Section 1.
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.
The Act of May 26, 1790 (1 Stat. 122) states
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,That the acts of the legislatures of the several states shall be authenticated by having the seal of their respective states affixed thereto:
That the records and judicial proceedings of the courts of any state, shall be proved or admitted in any other court within the United States, by the attestation of the clerk, and the seal of the court annexed, if there be a seal, together with a certificate of the judge, chief justice, or presiding magistrate, as the case may be, that the said attestation is in due form.
28 U.S.C. § 1738 (2020)
§1738. State and Territorial statutes and judicial proceedings; full faith and credit
The Acts of the legislature of any State, Territory, or Possession of the United States, or copies thereof, shall be authenticated by affixing the seal of such State, Territory or Possession thereto.The records and judicial proceedings of any court of any such State, Territory or Possession, or copies thereof, shall be proved or admitted in other courts within the United States and its Territories and Possessions by the attestation of the clerk and seal of the court annexed, if a seal exists, together with a certificate of a judge of the court that the said attestation is in proper form.
Such Acts, records and judicial proceedings or copies thereof, so authenticated, shall have the same full faith and credit in every court within the United States and its Territories and Possessions as they have by law or usage in the courts of such State, Territory or Possession from which they are taken.
U.S. Supreme Court in MILWAUKEE COUNTY v. M.E. WHITE CO., 296 U.S. 268 (1935).
2. The faith and credit required to be given to judgments does not depend on the Constitution alone. Article 4, 1, not only commands that 'full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State' but it adds "Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof." And Congress has exercised this power, by Act of May 26, 1790, c. 11, 28 U.S.C. 687, 28 USCA 687, which provides the manner of proof of judgments of one state in the courts of another, and specifically directs that judgments "shall have such faith and credit given to them in every court within the United States as they have by law or usage in the courts of the State from which they are taken."
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
Rule 44. Proving an Official Record(a) Means of Proving.
(1) Domestic Record.
Each of the following evidences an official record — or an entry in it — that is otherwise admissible and is kept within the United States, any state, district, or commonwealth, or any territory subject to the administrative or judicial jurisdiction of the United States:
(A) an official publication of the record; or
(B) a copy attested by the officer with legal custody of the record — or by the officer's deputy — and accompanied by a certificate that the officer has custody. The certificate must be made under seal:
(i) by a judge of a court of record in the district or political subdivision where the record is kept; or
(ii) by any public officer with a seal of office and with official duties in the district or political subdivision where the record is kept.
(2) Foreign Record.
(A) In General. Each of the following evidences a foreign official record — or an entry in it — that is otherwise admissible:
(i) an official publication of the record; or
(ii) the record — or a copy — that is attested by an authorized person and is accompanied either by a final certification of genuineness or by a certification under a treaty or convention to which the United States and the country where the record is located are parties.
(B) Final Certification of Genuineness. A final certification must certify the genuineness of the signature and official position of the attester or of any foreign official whose certificate of genuineness relates to the attestation or is in a chain of certificates of genuineness relating to the attestation. A final certification may be made by a secretary of a United States embassy or legation; by a consul general, vice consul, or consular agent of the United States; or by a diplomatic or consular official of the foreign country assigned or accredited to the United States.
(C) Other Means of Proof. If all parties have had a reasonable opportunity to investigate a foreign record's authenticity and accuracy, the court may, for good cause, either:
(i) admit an attested copy without final certification; or
(ii) permit the record to be evidenced by an attested summary with or without a final certification.
(b) Lack of Record.
A written statement that a diligent search of designated records revealed no record or entry of a specified tenor is admissible as evidence that the records contain no such record or entry. For domestic records, the statement must be authenticated under Rule 44(a)(1). For foreign records, the statement must comply with (a)(2)(C)(ii).
(c) Other Proof.
A party may prove an official record — or an entry or lack of an entry in it — by any other method authorized by law.
The fault, dear friend, is not with me. It is with a system so rigid in it's processes and procedures that it can be convinced to accept crap as the truth.
I take it under advisement that you do not approve of the Constitution or the actual laws of the United States and prefer to quote 18th century European legal philosophy about natural law and international law.
You are entitled to your own imaginary constitution and imaginary system of law and imaginary statutes, but they only apply in your imagination.
So let's say Obama was born in Canada, but Hawaii issued a birth certificate for him in August of 1961.
*YOU* and others claim the English common law applies to citizenship, so if Obama is born in Canada, he is *NOT* a citizen under *YOUR* preferred rules.
So Hawaiian law allows them to give him a birth certificate though he was born in Canada.
Now you come along and say all courts must accept this thing that does not prove what needs to be proved. (birth in the US.)
Are you telling us that you simply do not care where he was born, or if he is even a citizen at all?
Your arguments achieve that result, so one begins to think you are okay with a lie so long as it achieves the result you want.