Given your position that the best way to deal with Obama is the ballot box -
Do you think there is a moral hazard to not upholding election, fraud, and forgery laws?
Who gets to decide which laws should be maintained, if there are some that should be ignored?
It's more a case that patriotic Americans would not be able to remove Obama from office prior to next January in any case. The possible fraud in the book bio is a minor legal issue, one that cannot be decided by the courts while Obama is in office and that would not be considered by Dems to rise to the level of "High Crimes and Misdemeanors". Congress is not going to attempt to remove Obama from office without a smoking gun, something a whole lot more convincing than lying under oath with proof in the form of a semen-stained dress, which was still not enough to dump the perjurer-in-Chief. The Obama bio narrative is not that smoking gun. We've seen what happened with removing Clinton from office, where the democrats will close ranks around a fellow criminal to retain power, and we know they would never support Obama's removal if they could get away with backing him. There just isn't enough evidence to remove Obama, and there there is no indication that there will be enough, not in time for it to matter. The problem is access to the evidence, and we can't get that access without proof of what is hidden.
Consider the "Just War" theories. They all include something to the effect that: "A war can only be just if it is fought with a reasonable chance of success. Deaths and injury incurred in a hopeless cause are not morally justifiable." While I don't entirely agree in the case of war, an attempt to remove Obama from office would require a reasonable chance of making America better before it would be worth undertaking. Remember that there is a political cost to making the attempt, and it would be foolish to try if the most likely outcome was making the situation worse - four more years with an anti-American communist in our White House. I would prefer that this election be decided based on the economy and Obama's pathetic performance, rather than based on what the media would report as a "birther" narrative.
It starts with a plaintiff having standing. If nobody can/will stand up and declare "he did wrong and I was harmed", then the law cannot be challenged. (Hence a lot of the crap laws we live under: nobody wants to push back, lest the court rule to the contrary and it's reinforced.)