It's more complex and nuanced than that. The governing authority for verifying the election is the U.S Congress.
We elect the members of the U.S Congress to represent us in that process. The losers of that process have no standing other than the political arena. Which is where the issue has been for years now. So, while the American Citizen certainly has the standing and right to question the validity of Obamas elibility, they cannot do so in a court of law. They can only do so through the governing authority, which the U.S Constitution says it's Congress. Exactly what is the path through the judicial system you think there is? The SCOTUS eventually compelling Congress to re-certify just to be sure? SCOTUS compelling Congress to impeach President Obama? SCOTUS Annulling the election? SCOTUS compelling the President to step down? Where is the annulment clause in the USCON? The only enforcement power of SCOTUS is public opinion and Congressional impetus, and neither have been interested.
That’s my point. The judicial system and Congress have failed the American people. They have us running like rats in a boxed maze. There are legitimate red flags yet the people have no avenue for redress.
Show me the exact words in the Constitution where the job of determining Presidential eligibility is given to Congress.
Congress is expressly given the resonsibility of determining the eligibility of Congressmen-elect; where are they similarly given the express responsibility of doing the same for the President-elect?
And certifying the electoral votes is not the same thing. That is simply ensuring that they’ve got the true, state-certified result of their electors’ votes. While Congress COULD potentially raise the question of eligibility during that certification, they do not have the means to determine birth facts or to interpret the US Constitution so they would, in the end, have to rely upon the judicial system to figure it out for them if a question was raised.
But because the task is not particularly given to Congress or to any other body, it falls to the courts to decide anyway. What that means is that the inferior courts have WRONGLY claimed it is a “political” question, in order to keep the courts from having to do what the Constitution requires of them.
And THAT is a travesty that needs to be addressed.
Bear in mind that if a person argues that the Constitution especially gives the task to Congress, then the legal interpretation of the Constitution can ONLY be made by Congress, and not even John McCain could have had “standing” in the courts to get a decision by the only Constitutionally-authorized body for ultimately interpreting the US Constitution. Is that REALLY what you mean to argue?