Replies

justlurking asked about the history of the 1982 law permitting Hawaii BCs for out of state births don’t get that that law was passed 21 years after Obama’s birth.

You can check out the law yourself here.
Note the last bracketed language: "[L 1982, c 182, §1]"
This means that the law was passed in 1982, per chapter 182, Section 1. There was no such provision prior to 1982.

To see an example of a law amended multiple times, go back to that link, and click "next" at the bottom. It will take you to the next subsection.

At the end of that section, you'll see " [L 1949, c 327, §22; RL 1955, §57-21; am L Sp 1959 2d, c 1, §19; am L 1967, c 30, §2; HRS §338-18; am L 1977, c 118, §1; am L 1991, c 190, §1; am L 1997, c 305, §5; am L 2001, c 246, §2]"

This means that the law was first passed in 1949. It was then amended in 1955, again in 1959, 1967, 1977, 1991, 1997, and 2001. This site doesn't show you what the amendments were, or what the original law said, but you can get at least some of that by (paid) subscription on Lexis.com or Westlaw.com.

"Another claim (which is anecdotal) is there are certain circumstances where birth records are completely sealed to protect the identify of biological parents, in adoptions."

For info on Hawaii adoption law as it exists today, start here. As you're reading, always check the bottom part, showing when the law was passed and when amendments were made. Some of the laws reference cases. Again, you need to look at the date of the case, and compare it to the law (and amendments), because several of the cases were based on prior versions of the law.

Hope this helps you in doing your own verification - wherever it may lead you!

Thanks for doing the research on this. I appreciate it.

The notation for amendments is similar to my state, so I expected something like that.

But, I'd like you to take a look at an example:

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/ViewChapter.aspx?key=20600.17898

It will load a large file, so you may need to be patient. Then, use your browser to search for this string:

SUBCHAPTER H. LICENSE TO CARRY A CONCEALED HANDGUN

Page down just a bit, and you'll see the same kind of notation, in reverse chronological order. The "top" entry is:

Added by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 165, Sec. 10.01(a), eff. Sept. 1, 1997.

If you didn't have any other knowledge, it would look like this law was enacted in 1997.

But, it wasn't. It was enacted in 1995. However, it was added to a different statute by the Legislature. The identical language was moved from that statute to this one, by a bill that is enacted every year to make "nonsubstantive additions to and corrections in enacted codes, to the nonsubstantive codification or disposition of various laws omitted from enacted codes, and to conforming codifications enacted by the [previous] Legislature".

This bill is always huge. If you are really interested in it, I'll follow up with a link. However, my point is that the modification history doesn't show this particular statute existed before 1997.

I'm not saying that Hawaii might have done the same thing. I just wanted to point out one of the possibilities. Without more research (you have already done plenty, and thank you!) using a paid subscriptions to Lexus or Westlaw, it's going to be difficult for the average guy to piece all this together conclusively.

In Texas, all of the legislation is online back to 1989, and one can eventually find the bill that enacted a new law or a change in a law, along with the bill analysis that explains the rationale. If I have time later this week, I'll check the Hawaii websites to see if they have something similar. But, I doubt they go back that far.

For info on Hawaii adoption law as it exists today [....]

One thing I noticed was the birth certificate for adoption of a foreign born person -- but the original certificate must show the known or probable country of birth. I'm not claiming or even suggesting that this situation applies to Obama, but I wonder what a Certificate of Live Birth derived from this birth certificate would show?