A certificate is the means by which a person certifies, makes a certification. Yeah, the person certifies. In the old days, the Middle Ages, which I study, word of mouth certification was preferred to written certificates because written certifications/certificates could be forged.
But that the certifier is a person doesn’t change the fact that calling document “A” a certificate and document “B” a certification is gibberish, linguistically. A is as much a certification as B is a certification and B is as much a certificate as A is a certificate and both of them are, yes, issued by a certifier.
Which is where this debate started.
I guess it’s time for it to end. You keep moving the goalposts around the field.
I will end with this. The terminology used by Hawaii is fine. From 48 years ago there should be an Obama "Certificate of Live Birth". That certificate would show what was certified to by authorized personnel in 1961, including a doctor or midwife, with some signatures.
But, the "Certification of Live Birth" issued in 2008 contains no signatures, or even names of who certified what back in 1961. So, this is why the term certification is appropriate, because it is the state of Hawaii that is making all the certifications on the 2008 computer printout.
The terms are fine, but much confusion has come about in the discussions because people frequently use the terms interchangeably, when they properly mean different things. Even that "National Review" article switched the terms and said Obama has provided a "Certificate of Live Birth?, which he didn't.
But, the old certificate shows who certified what. The new certification printout is the certification made by the state of Hawaii.