No, but we do want them to enforce the Constitution, as is their function.
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;
...
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
We've have the big soap box denied to us, we've failed at the ballot box, don't you think we should give the jury box a try before invoking that final box?
I contend that giving the judicial system the extra- if not un-constitutional power to remove an elected president is perhaps as dangerous as allowing an ineligible official to serve out his term.
If he's not eligible, he's not President, elected or otherwise.
I've even seen some suggestions that the military should remove him as being unqualified. I think most Americans, even most birthers, can recognize this as a contender for the worst idea in American history.
Not if they have absolute proof of his ineligibility. Because they would not be removing a President, they would be escorting an illegal occupant off of federal property.
Another issue puzzles me. After fear of immediate repercussions has passed, and the fact of Obama’s ineligibility has been accepted, everyone with the means who has been injured by his actions will, and should, sue for damages. Senators, all of whom signed Senate Res. 511, may be protected, even though they lied about the jus sanguinis requirement - citizen parents. Orren Hatch even explored an amendment to Article II in 2003, to permit Arnold Schwarzenegger to run. Now he claims not to understand the definition he wanted to change.
Every bill Obama signed, every appointment seems challengable. He has no authority to conclude a contract. His judicial appointments too are illegitimate. Some day this judgment must come because recovery from the damages being caused will justify the filing of the case, though probably not until after Obama is out of office, since he now has the justice department spending our money to protect him.
We have virtual one party government now, with only the slightest separation of powers. As you pointed out, our supreme court not only has original jurisdiction, it has the obligation to address “Cases in law arising under this Constitution”. From Marbury v. Madison: “The Constitution is either a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and, like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it.
If the former part of the alternative be true, then a legislative act contrary to the Constitution is not law; if the latter part be true, then written Constitutions are absurd attempts on the part of the people to limit a power in its own nature illimitable.” Obama’s lack of authority means the legislation he signs is not law.
There is other case law which clarifies that the supreme court shall address direct violations of provisions of the constitution, and address them before taking more appelate cases. “Standing” issues are not defined in the Constitution, and not relevent.
Obama’s handlers know of his ineligibility. So do Republicans, who have paid some of the same law firms which defend Obama (Kendall and Ellis), to defend McCain in three lawsuits questioning his natural born credentials. Perhaps that is one of the reasons to spend as much of our capital as possible as quickly as possible? This is a Constitutional crisis which will only get worse the longer we have an ineligible executive making decisions which must be undone because they are not legal.