Again, there is the issue of the doctrine of “best evidence.” Are you suggesting the Supreme Court would settle for the vague statement of a third party appointed official over an original document? That is in contravention of the doctrine of best evidence, which would apply in federal court to all cases in general.
I think they might indeed accept such a standard.
It need not be a vague statement. The Hawaii government fellow could simply say that Obama was born in Hawaii according to all existing records.
This is not a matter of evidence but of qualification, which do not necessarily go by the “best evidence” standard. The INS would accept the Hawaii certification of birth for instance.