Three people have now voted no.
It's a sad day in America...unless we have some foriegn nationals on the board.
I voted no because the Supreme Court is not vested with enforcement power. Yes they do have jurisdiction but no means (power) to enforce their decisions if the government decides to ignore them.
Article III, Section 1, that "The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish."
Many would say this represents power but it does not invest the USSC the resources to enforce their decisions. If you people would read and learn history you would know about the governments past in flaunting this lack of power.
In the Federalist Papers 78, Alexander Hamilton described the federal judiciary as "beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments" of government. He also said the court had "neither the power of the purse nor of the sword" to enforce their decisions.
Therefore the original post "Does the court have the authority and power to strike down Federal laws passed by the Congress and signed by the President?" has to be answered in the negative since the court has no power (in itself) to enforce a decision that strikes down a Federal or state law.
I assume by 'power' the OP was refering to 'legitimate authority', not necessary the physical ability to enforce it's will. I suspect this is why our military is sworn to protect the Constitution, rather than blindly follow orders.