Oh come on!
There were rivers of ink (or electrons) spilled before the special joint session that certified Obama's election.
Almost every Member of Congress or Senator had at least HEARD of the controversy. President of the Senate Cheney, who signed the papers, knew all about it. President-Elect Obama had an unprecedented meeting with the members of the Supreme Court prior to his inauguration.
If one Member of Congress and one Senator had signed an objection, there would have been a floor debate. None did so.
If Vice President Cheney had objected, there would have been a floor debate. He did not do so.
If Chief Justice Roberts had been concerned, he could have demanded documentary proof. He did not do so.
This question is, at its root, a nonjusticeable political question. ALL of the political branches, including the Electoral College, the Congress including ALL Republicans and the Republican Vice President/President of the Senate had the opportunity to object to Obama's certification and they did not do so.
The doctrine of nonjusticeability of political questions is fundamental to a Republic. The breach of this doctrine in Bush v. Gore was a serious error, which will not be repeated. This question has been over for more than a year, and I see no possibility that an Article III court would intervene at this point.
It's over.
A statement verified as developed and approved by Mark Bennett (R)Attorney General of the state of Hawaii:
“I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, director of the Hawaii State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen. I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago.”
No, he could not. Not without a case before him. He could have refused to adminsiter the oath of office, but they could have just substituted another justice, or anyone at all really. Maybe the Imam of the DC mosque attended by the 9-11 hijackers and "Major" Hassan. The Constitution does not indicate who, if anyone, should administer the oath. In the early days, the oath was not always administered by the Chief Justice, that is a more recent tradition with no foundation in the Constitution.
Meanwhile to have so refused would likely have created a conflict of interest should a case eventually come before the Supreme Court and Chief Justice Roberts.
This question is, at its root, a nonjusticeable political question. ALL of the political branches, including the Electoral College, the Congress including ALL Republicans and the Republican Vice President/President of the Senate had the opportunity to object to Obama's certification and they did not do so.
So your position is that if somehow the electorate picked the Yemeni born son of Osama Bin Laden and no one objected in Congress, it would be a "done deal", and no action by the Courts would be possible. Yes that is extreme, but it is no different in principal than any other reason for ineligibility being overlooked by the "Political Branches".