“The one that I recently got from Tennessee, to apply for social security, is a copy of my original CERTIFICATE, photocopied onto a CERTIFICATION form”
Then you have a photocopy of the certificate which certifies, provides certification.
All certificates certify, are certifications.
The bureaucrats that invented a distinction between “certificate” and “certification” are illiterate.
If a certain piece of paper is a copy of an original certificate, call it that: a “copy of the certificate.” (I’m speaking to the bureaucrats here, not to you.)
If it does not certify because it is a copy, say so, but then don’t call it a certification.
There is absolutely no linguistic difference between certificate and certification.
That bureaucrats have invented such a distinction is not surprising. It contributes to the confusion.
No genuine certificate that does not certify (that does not provide certification) is imaginable. No certification that does not involve some kind of certificate is imaginable.
Now, “certificates” or “certification-providing documents” are usually hard copy, paper (but formerly were on vellum and today can be “virtualized” in digital form, capable of transfer to paper).
“Document” for most people means a hard copy on paper. But the word itself merely means “something that shows proof.” (My guess, without looking it up, is that document ultimately has Greek roots and certificate only Latin roots but both are used in Latin and mean roughly the same thing.)
So bureacrats, stuck on the idea that “certificate” and “document” mean paper, invent the idea that “certification” is different from “certificate”—sort of like certification is the act of certifying (which merely means “making certain, putting doubts to rest”). But how does one go about certifying? By issuing certificates. The photocopy of an original certificate is also a certificate. How much legal authority (how much “certificatory power” or how much “certificationnness”) it possesses may vary depending on circumstances.
I don’t doubt that bureaucrats make these distinctions, but they would help themselves a lot if they just added modifiers to “certificate” (”copy of the original certificate” “legally valid copy of the original certificate” or “non-legally valid copy . . . “ or “secondary certificate” or “derived certification”) or used an entirely different word to show that the copy is not of equal certificational value to the original, if indeed it is not. But some copies of some documents are of equal documentary value as the original, that is, they are equal certifications, equally certificates, certify certificationally equally.
“If a certain piece of paper is a copy of an original certificate, call it that: a “copy of the certificate.” (I’m speaking to the bureaucrats here, not to you.)”
Well, I think this certification form is an all purpose
form for many uses.
As I said, the “Certificate of live birth” is photocopied onto
this new 8x10 form (”certification of vital records”), so it contains ALL of the information and signatures of my original. Nothing is redacted, as it is an exact photocopy of the hospital form from 1944.
No, they're not. There is the concept in accounting and record keeping in general of the "source document". The old "Certificate of Live Birth" was the source document of birth information in Hawaii as long as it was in use. This computer generated "Certification of Live Birth" is not a source document. The source document is an original piece of paper, or the computer storage device itself where the information was originally recorded.
The originally recorded birth information is from the "Certificate of Live Birth" for all Hawaiians born when that certificate was in use. Certified copies were supplied to individuals for personal use. I don't know if it is still in use, or if birth information is now entered directly into a computer. But for Obama, that's irrelevant since he was born when the typed "Certificate of Live Birth" was in use. And, two state officials say they have examined the original, or vault copy.
The state was correct to use one term for the older typed, original source document "Certificate of Live Birth", and a different term for the non-source document, computer generated "Certification of Live Birth" printout.
You should check out the rules for people who have COLB’s born “ABROAD” on .gov
And such is not the case between Barack Obama's Certification of Live Birth, and his actual long form Certificate of Live Birth, which is supposedly on file for him in the state of Hawaii.
This is where you went wrong. Certificates don't certify anything. Designated individuals certify that something has taken place. They could record that certification on a brown paper bag. Certificates merely reflect what a properly designated person has certified and recorded.
What does an official certificate forged by an unauthorized person certify? It is a certificate, but a certificate is just a form until valid information is added by a person authorized to certify.