“Certification and Certificate are exactly the same thing. Period.”
No, it is not.
Certification is an abbreviated document to say that a
certificate exist.
It does not necessarily validate any of the information
from the original.
The one that I recently got from Tennessee, to apply for social security, is a copy of my original CERTIFICATE, photocopied onto a CERTIFICATION form.
All the birthers want is a copy of the hospital issued form that list the hospital and signed by the mother and doctor. THAT, and that only would be proof.
http://i519.photobucket.com/albums/u358/zczc3185/Birth_cert_coats_7c.jpg
“The one that I recently got from Tennessee, to apply for social security, is a copy of my original CERTIFICATE, photocopied onto a CERTIFICATION form”
Then you have a photocopy of the certificate which certifies, provides certification.
All certificates certify, are certifications.
The bureaucrats that invented a distinction between “certificate” and “certification” are illiterate.
If a certain piece of paper is a copy of an original certificate, call it that: a “copy of the certificate.” (I’m speaking to the bureaucrats here, not to you.)
If it does not certify because it is a copy, say so, but then don’t call it a certification.
There is absolutely no linguistic difference between certificate and certification.
That bureaucrats have invented such a distinction is not surprising. It contributes to the confusion.
No genuine certificate that does not certify (that does not provide certification) is imaginable. No certification that does not involve some kind of certificate is imaginable.
Now, “certificates” or “certification-providing documents” are usually hard copy, paper (but formerly were on vellum and today can be “virtualized” in digital form, capable of transfer to paper).
“Document” for most people means a hard copy on paper. But the word itself merely means “something that shows proof.” (My guess, without looking it up, is that document ultimately has Greek roots and certificate only Latin roots but both are used in Latin and mean roughly the same thing.)
So bureacrats, stuck on the idea that “certificate” and “document” mean paper, invent the idea that “certification” is different from “certificate”—sort of like certification is the act of certifying (which merely means “making certain, putting doubts to rest”). But how does one go about certifying? By issuing certificates. The photocopy of an original certificate is also a certificate. How much legal authority (how much “certificatory power” or how much “certificationnness”) it possesses may vary depending on circumstances.
I don’t doubt that bureaucrats make these distinctions, but they would help themselves a lot if they just added modifiers to “certificate” (”copy of the original certificate” “legally valid copy of the original certificate” or “non-legally valid copy . . . “ or “secondary certificate” or “derived certification”) or used an entirely different word to show that the copy is not of equal certificational value to the original, if indeed it is not. But some copies of some documents are of equal documentary value as the original, that is, they are equal certifications, equally certificates, certify certificationally equally.
I'm way past the cute baby footprint and the little blue ribboned seal and the doctor's signature. He and his minions have already proven they are not above forging documents. He's already admitted his father was Kenyan, so that in itself throws out any eligibility. No, I want a heck of a lot more proof of who he really is and who he's played himself off to be.
