Have you read the Third Article? The courts deal with a lot of stuff that Congress hasn’t legislated. They deal with issues between states, with ambassadors, and with private entities where Constitutional issues are at stake, as well as government actions other than legislation. The courts deal with tons of stuff. And they are given the job of deciding controversies that arise out of the Constitution, in both matters of fact and law.
Congress is specifically given the job of deciding on eligibility issues regarding ITS OWN MEMBERS. But nowhere is it specifically given the job of determining eligibility for the President. To do so requires an interpretation of “natural born citizen”, and interpreting the Constituiton is the job of the JUDICIAL BRANCH, not the LEGISLATIVE BRANCH.
The separation of powers matters.
So does Obama. That doesn't make it Constitutional. At least some of it is usurpation.
Asking me whether I've read Article III is juvenile. And then telling me that the Court has jurisdiction over cases involving Ambassadors, even though it says this in the Constitution borders on stupid. Do you know of any USSC cases involving Ambassadors?
And did you miss this:
In all the other [i.e. except ones involving Ambassadors] 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.In other words, the Congress has the power to tell the Supreme Court to butt out of any case or issue they want it to butt out of. It's not even clear whether the President gets a say in these "exceptions." (Cute too that such "regulations" were to be made by Congress, not the Executive.)
ML/NJ