The full faith and credit clause states that there must be a way of verifying documents and so far, Hawaii has NOT legally verified any alleged birth certificate for Obama NOR have they ever LEGALLY verified he was born in Hawaii. Under Federal Rules of Evidence (one way of satisfying the full faith and credit clause), if someone claims to a fact through a certified document (such as a birth record) then those who challenge it in court have a right to inspect that record. Consider the refusal by Hawaii and Obama to submit an official copy of that record in ANY court of law to be quite telling of what the record does not and cannot prove.
If Obama is ever required to produce his birth certificate in court, I believe that he will produce one from Hawaii stating that he was born there.
The Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution requires the court to treat that birth certificate with the same respect that the court has to birth certificates of its own state. The birth certificate will be self-authenticating and prima facie evidence. Anyone challenging that birth certificate will have to come up with their own evidence that the facts on the birth certificate are somehow false. A newspaper from Kenya, for example, will not trump the official record of a state. Assertions and speculation won’t do. You need something to PROVE that the state records are false. That’s a mighty tall challenge. What proof do you think a court will accept over its official state records?