Cecilie1200
Diamond Member
- Nov 15, 2008
- 55,062
- 16,609
It's difficult to accept Burnett's assertion that he is "not a birther" on its face. What is meant by the term "birther" if not someone who does not accept the available evidence that Obama was born in Hawaii?
Even putting aside this disingenuity, Burnett seems to be a bald-faced liar. The Hawaii provision he cites (http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/vol06_ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0018.htm) lists twelve categories of person entitled to the record:
Now I'm not a lawyer, but unless "partisan opponent who holds elective office in a state where the registrant is running for President" falls into one of those categories, I believe Hawaii is not allowed, much less required, to respond to Burnett's request.
Well, unless you live in Arizona, it's really none of your frigging business what type of person our Secretary of State is or isn't. He's got the job, he's got the authority to ask, they're bound by law to respond, end of story.
Perhaps you'd like to show me where in the law it states that Hawai'i is allowed to ignore requests for verification from a duly-elected official of another state "if he's personally planning to vote for someone we don't like".
Absolutely, I'd be happy to show you where in the law it states that Hawaii will not release the records to someone like Burnett. If you'd read my link you would have seen:
§338-18 Disclosure of records. (a) To protect the integrity of vital statistics records, to ensure their proper use, and to ensure the efficient and proper administration of the vital statistics system, it shall be unlawful for any person to permit inspection of, or to disclose information contained in vital statistics records, or to copy or issue a copy of all or part of any such record, except as authorized by this part or by rules adopted by the department of health.
(b) The department shall not permit inspection of public health statistics records, or issue a certified copy of any such record or part thereof, unless it is satisfied that the applicant has a direct and tangible interest in the record. The following persons shall be considered to have a direct and tangible interest in a public health statistics record:
(1) The registrant;
(2) The spouse of the registrant;
(3) A parent of the registrant;
(4) A descendant of the registrant;
(5) A person having a common ancestor with the registrant;
(6) A legal guardian of the registrant;
(7) A person or agency acting on behalf of the registrant;
(8) A personal representative of the registrant's estate;
(9) A person whose right to inspect or obtain a certified copy of the record is established by an order of a court of competent jurisdiction;
(10) Adoptive parents who have filed a petition for adoption and who need to determine the death of one or more of the prospective adopted child's natural or legal parents;
(11) A person who needs to determine the marital status of a former spouse in order to determine the payment of alimony;
(12) A person who needs to determine the death of a nonrelated co-owner of property purchased under a joint tenancy agreement; and
(13) A person who needs a death certificate for the determination of payments under a credit insurance policy.
So, again, unless Burnett is claiming that he falls into one of the 13 categories or some other exception mentioned in the rules (I confess I haven't read every Hawaiian law, myself) Hawaiian law seems to forbid the release of the birth certificate to him. You seem to have a different interpretation, and I would be delighted to hear you explain it.
You say that Burnett's actions are none of my "friggin business". While this is of course literally true I nevertheless assert the right to discuss them. I feel perfectly comfortable discussing state officials from different states; I've even been known to discuss the actions of private citizens. Burnett, who has made his comments publicly, hardly has a moral or legal privacy claim to assert here.
But your suggestion that Burnett's actions cannot affect me is false. He seems to be considering (or more likely, pretending to consider) keeping Obama off the ballot in Arizona. That could affect the disposition of a federal office that holds some interest to me.
He didn't ask anyone to "disclose the record", shitforbrains. He asked them to verify that they had it. Different statute. Can you say, "Duhhh"?