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.
Even accepting that, it doesn't necessarily follow that enforcement lies at the state level. As I noted (Post #39, above) a Presidential candidate either meets the Constitutional qualifications or not. So a candidate can't be ineligible in Alabama, yet eligible in other states. But positing that enforcement of the Constitutional provision vests in the respective State secretaries invites inconsistent results and chaos. (And there is the obvious potential political mischief that could ensue were a Secretary in a key "swing state" or delegate-rich primary state to act to keep a particular candidate from the opposing party off that state's ballot).
While Article II is silent as to enforcement, guidance can be gained by viewing the Constitution as a whole. Relevant in that inquiry are the Supremacy Clause, Congress's impeachment powers, and the powers and duties delegated to the Congress in the Twelfth and Twentieth Amendments. The better argument then is that any Article II enforcement lies with the Congress (post-election) or perhaps with We the People (pre-election) through refusal to vote for an ineligible candidate.
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.
Once you bring state records into consideration, the Full Faith & Credit clause also comes into play. It is axiomatic that the state which has issued a record has the ultimate say on the content and validity of that record. Hawaii had made repeated affirmations that its vital records indicate BHO II was born in Hawaii. The FF&C clause makes it hard to sustain the argument that the question should be re-considered ("enforced") upwards of 49 times at the state level.