Whatever Hawaii says is valid proof of birth in that state will be accepted by every other state. Now that Obama’s best buddy, Neil Abercrombie is Governor of Hawaii, a short form COLB for Obama will be recognized as valid proof of birth and every other state will accept it or be sued for violating Article IV, Section 1.
The Full Faith and Credit Clause—Article IV, Section 1, of the U.S. Constitution—provides that the various states must recognize legislative acts, public records, and judicial decisions of the other states within the United States. It states that “Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State.” The statute that implements the clause, 28 U.S.C.A. § 1738, further specifies that “a state’s preclusion rules should control matters originally litigated in that state.” The Full Faith and Credit Clause ensures that judicial decisions rendered by the courts in one state are recognized and honored in every other state. It also prevents parties from moving to another state to escape enforcement of a judgment or to relitigate a controversy already decided elsewhere, a practice known as forum shopping.
What case(s) are you citing from as it pertains to this particular matter?
The problem is, as I understand it, that Hawaii apparently issued COLBs to individuals who weren’t actually born in the state. If this is true, Hawaii arguably can’t then declare this to be sufficient for national matters if there is nothing else backing it. This goes beyond a mere state public records issue.
And just because one state accepted a declaration about a COLB, there’s nothing technically stopping it from also asking for a BC, especially if it pertains to a national matter. In other words, “we accept the COLB as proof as you have deemed it- we just want to see supplemental records for our purposes”.