That sounds to me like physical access is allowed for, if the Framers gave Congress to power the prescribe the manner to determine how such records are proved. In the absence of Congress acting, who's to say that Arizona can't decide on its own how Hawaii's records are proved? The 10th Amendment will allow Arizona to act, with Articles IV and VI on its side.
So here's how it works out.
1. Arizona claims "full faith and credit" to prove Hawaii's records for itself.
2. Hawaii refuses.
3. Arizona goes to the Supreme Court to force Hawaii to comply with full faith and credit because SCOTUS has original jurisdiction in matters between States.
4. SCOTUS will kick it Congress because the Constitution provides for another remedy before SCOTUS is compelled to act.
5. Congress waffles because it's an election year. The House looks at it but Boehner goes soft. Reid in the Senate says "full faith and what?"
6. Arizona, asserting itself as a sovereign goes back to Hawaii and demands that in the absence of Congress exercising his check and balance to lay out the manner of proving the public record, says that it still has full faith and credit power to inspect the records and goes back to SCOTUS.
7. SCOTUS...?
-PJ
I *think* that if Congress has not specifically provided for “physical inspection” that SCOTUS would defer to Hawaii’s laws regarding access because the records belong to Hawaii not Arizona.
But, I could be totally wrong because the federal courts recently forced Louisiana to modify one of their original vital records to include the names of a gay couple as the adoptive parents on a new birth certificate for an adoption that took place in New York. (Louisiana does not allow gay couples to adopt.)