What the decision said was, "Although logically the Secretary of State, being the chief elections official of the state, should be vested with such a duty, under our present constitutional and statutory framework addressing elections, including presidential elections, not only is that not the case, but the Secretary of State would be bereft of written authority for such an action and ill equipped from a practical standpoint to carry out such an important duty."
In other words the court wouldn't have a problem with the SoS verifying candidate eligibility, but the law would have to be changed to give them the authority to do so.
Wow, what a brilliant and concise synopsis! Well done.
It should be noted that the Secretaries of State in Arizona and Kansas DID verify Obama’s birth certificate via the Hawaii Registrar of Vital Statistics.
http://archive.azcentral.com/12news/Obama-Verification.pdf
http://www.scribd.com/mobile/doc/106576604
Eggs Ackley. But the kneepad obamaroids will cite this as yet another confirmation of little barry bastard boy’s eligibility.
The "decision" was Per Curiam with no written opinion for the majority. So the decision didn't say anything beyond that the lower court's dismissal of the Complaint is affirmed.
At most one can say is that a minority of the Justices (those writing concurring and dissenting opinions) were in favor of the SoS having some amount of investigatory authority, with the concurring Justices believing that authority first needs to come from the Legislature.
And with this argument I disagree completely. The power is implied, it need not be specifically mentioned by statute.
I wonder how many other duties of the Secretary of State are not explicitly spelled out by statute, yet the power to do so is assumed and utilized?
This is just a "let this cup pass before me" decision by Judges who did not want to deal with it. They had to blame their inaction on something, and the omission of specificity in the law is as good a scapegoat as any.