[DiogenesLamp]

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.

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.

[DoodleDawg]

The power is implied, it need not be specifically mentioned by statute.

Why?

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?

If you can give some examples of them then I'll buy the claim of implied powers.

[Red Steel]

Your last three posts are spot on. It is inherent to the office. The judge who wrote the dissent is correct, the other 7 punted because, "as we all know" the "Birther stuff" is such a headache to explain and deal with.

An analogy in common language LoL. The Alabama SoS has to go pooh pooh while he is sitting in his office. Oh crap, He can't wipe his you-know-what with TP because there is no specific written statute that says he can. Oh darn, gotta live with a crusty butt! I'm sure there are better examples or analogies where people should get the point, but this one came to mind first. ;-)

Another obvious question. Is there a statute that prevents the AL SoS from using the inherent powers of his office to investigate the obvious Constitutional qualifications of ballot candidates?

Answer: I highly doubt Alabama has a statute that prevents this.