All you need is a court order from a judge and it can be inspected. Over the last eight years, no one has bothered to do that.
And a congressional committee of Congress can also issue a congressional subpoena for the document if they wished to inspect it.
Here’s the Hawaii law: HRS §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:
(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;
Thank you so much.
Obama must not have known how easy it was for him to get a real copy of his BC so he produced an obvious forgery and showed it to the world.
"No one has bothered to do that"? Are you sh*tting us? People have been trying since 2008 to "do that." It's the F***ing @$$holes in the Judicial system with their worship of ritual and aversion to unpleasant cocktail parties that has been the major problem with "doing that."
All you seem to know how to do is hide behind robes and statutory gibberish.
I want to proffer you a legal argument. In Marbury v Madison it was held:
Between these alternatives there is no middle ground. The Constitution is either a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and, like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it.If the former part of the alternative be true, then a legislative act contrary to the Constitution is not law; if the latter part be true, then written Constitutions are absurd attempts on the part of the people to limit a power in its own nature illimitable.
...
If, then, the Courts are to regard the Constitution, and the Constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the Legislature, the Constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply.
So in the case in which compliance with Constitutional law of Presidential eligibility and State Privacy laws apply to the same case, which wins?
Well in our upside down goofy bastard ignorant barking at the moon legal system, the tail wags the dog.