1. Tired and old is no excuse for ignorance. The full faith and credit clause is a non-sequitur. There are, however, national standards for vital records and birth documentation. So, yes, most states, if not all, issue by default a birth abstract, rather than a traditional long form birth certificate, however, when such a document is actually presented, it can be physically acertained as legitimate, especially if its provided directly from the state of issue rather than from a candidate or staff member. A jpg of alleged vital record would not be sufficient. It’s dumb to sit here and pretend like we’re not talking about Obama and instead some hypothetical candidate. You’re worred about a law requiring some mythical ‘excess’ documentation, when in Obama’s case, we wouldn’t even have the minimum standard legal documentation to begin with.
The other part of your problem is that people whose births were originally registered on long forms can still get copies of these long forms. Their generally used for genealogical purposes because they list information about the parents and not just the child. If it was necessary for such documentation in order to resolve a question, such documentation can be provided. It’s silly to believe otherwise.
2. You keep expressing disbelief, but you aren’t providing any real substance to explain your disbelief. Chief Justice Waite rejected Viriginia Minor’s claim of 14th amendment citizenship in Minor v. Happersett because he said she was already a natural born citizen. He said such persons were born in the country to parents who were citizens and tied this directly to Art II Sec I (presidential eligibility).
The question now would be, who does the 14th amendment apply to in terms of persons who become citizens at birth?? The 14th specifies persons born in the country, so it has to apply only to people born of non-citizen parents, since Waite rejected it for NBCs. Justice Gray read this decision and cited this definition. He was unable to declare Wong Kim Ark to be a natural born citizen. He went on a lengthy diatribe about English common law and how persons could be born as citizens without regard to the status of the parents, but he NEVER called such people NBCs. Second, he made it clear that he understood Minor’s decision as declaring citizenship by virtue of place AND by virtue of parentage. “The decision in that case was that a woman born of citizen parents within the United States was a citizen of the United States, ...”
Gray also made a second distinction between NBC and 14th amendment citizenship at birth. NBC, he noted was defined outside of the Constitution. The 14th amendment citizenship at birth was defined by circumstanced IN the constituion, specifically in the 14th amendment itself.
What definition do we have that trumps the Supreme Court?? What exactly could Obama or the DNC challenge this definition with?? You need more than a nunnn uhhhh!
The other part of your problem is that people whose births were originally registered on long forms can still get copies of these long forms. Their generally used for genealogical purposes because they list information about the parents and not just the child. If it was necessary for such documentation in order to resolve a question, such documentation can be provided. It’s silly to believe otherwise.
At least you understand the issue now. But states do, in fact, vary as to what they will produce anymore. And no one but you is even talking about a jpg. If a state passes a law requiring birth documentation for the ballot, the candidate in question will have to produce a certified document from his state, or more likely simply authorize the originating state to transmit such a document to the relevant requesting state official. And yes, everyone with a functioning brain stem knows that has not happened to date with Obama.
And again, those are your interpretations of the legal record. Actual courts are on record disagreeing with them, so it's kind of silly to believe your personal opinion is fact. But as I said, pass a law in a given state triggering a legal test of the issue, and then the matter will be clearly documented.