Briefly summarized: Obama was never a party to this case. It was a state-court case brought by a third-party candidate, who sued the Alabama Secretary of State (a Republican, BTW) just before the 2012 election, seeking a court order that she not put either Romney or Obama on the ballot without examining their birth certificates. (The SOS was the only defendant.)
The lower court said that the Alabama statutes say that the Secretary of State "shall" put on the presidential ballot the candidates nominated by the "national parties" (i.e., the Democrats and Republicans), so the Secretary of State had no power or duty to investigate those candidates.
Five justices of the Alabama Supreme Court (all 9 justices are republicans, BTW), affirmed the lower court without writing any opinion.
Two justices concurred with the majority. Justice Bolin said that it would be a good idea for the Secretary of State to have the power to vet candidates' eligibility, but the Alabama legislature would have to change the law to give her that power. He also said that the plaintiff in this case sued too late, because the general election ballots had already been printed before the lawsuit was filed.
Justice Bryan wrote a short concurrence agreeing that nothing in current Alabama law gives the SOS the power to vet the eligibility of national party candidates, and nothing in current Alabama law gives any state court the power to decide the eligibility of candidates for President.
Chief Justice Moore (well-known as the "10 Commandments judge") dissented. He said: this case is moot because the 2012 election already happened, so no court can now consider Obama's eligibility; only Congress can refuse to count electoral votes once they've been cast and only Congress can remove a sitting President once he's sworn in. Notwithstanding that this case is moot, the SOS should vet the eligibility of all presidential candidates in future elections.
Justice Parker also dissented. He did not go as far as Moore -- he does not think the SOS should vet the eligibility of all candidates-- but said there were questions raised about Obama that the SOS should have looked into.
Eligibility ping.
I disagree with the Judge’s logic because such a function need not be specified by law. It is an inherent duty of the office.
I feel the same way regarding the manner in which no specific constitutional provision needs to be spelled out regarding the verification of eligibility.
It is an axiomatic principle that if one accepts a constitutional provision as valid, then the power to enforce it is inherent by implication.
I would also assert that it is axiomatic that the enforcement powers of constitutional provisions automatically trump any state laws which attempt to interfere with enforcement, i.e. Record privacy laws.
This is how people would read the law in a sane world.