The purpose of the age provision is to limit the pool of candidates from which the electors select presidents to persons who are 30 years old or older. Nowadays, voters select the electors in all of our states and so voters should also confine their choices to persons who meet the age limit.
Eligibility is a legal matter. Legal matters are handled judicially.
If you try to flesh out these assertions, i think you'll find that any question under the sun can be called a "legal" issue if you type up the question, put it into a manila case file and set it on a judge's desk for his resolution. To just declare that something is a "legal matter" to be "handled judicially" is to take an inappropriate shortcut.
Our Constitution distributes and entrusts power and authority to various constitutional actors to perform various decision-making functions. The Constitution empowers the electors to select presidents. There are no provisions calling for judicial review of their decisions.
For some reason, some people seem to think that only judges can be trusted to interpret and apply the eligibility standards for presidents as if it were some sort of mathematics problem that can only be resolved by a board of mathematicians. What makes you think that Supreme Court justices would be unanimous in choosing the same precise definition of the NBC clause?
Maybe it would help you find some peace here if you attempt to come to terms with why the Supreme Court has not become involved in the questions regarding Obama's eligibility, why the Supreme Court has never even hinted that it has to power to disqualify presidential candidates, why the justices attended both of Obama's inaugural ceremonies and why the Chief Justice has on two separate occasions volunteered to administer the oath of office to Obama? In view of all that, I just don't see how anyone can conclude that the Supreme Court (1) knows that eligibility is a "legal matter" that can only be "handled judicially," (2) knows that Obama is not eligible to be president, and (3) that Obama is, therefore, not really the president.
And, if after all that, you conclude that the Supreme Court obviously does not agree with all of your analysis, then how are you going to avoid taking that shortcut of yours to assert that the proper scope of Supreme Court power must be just another "legal matter" that can only be "handled judicially" by the Supreme Court - and not you? Can you accept the Supreme Court's determination that it lacks power to overrule electors?
I think it's obvious from the text of the Constitution that the electors have been entrusted to apply the eligibility standards and to select our presidents. I don't see any provisions for a role by the Supreme Court in selecting our presidents.
You fail to comprehend the obvious.
Really? You don't say.
What makes you think that Supreme Court justices would be unanimous in choosing the same precise definition of the NBC clause?
Who said anything about NBC?
The point raised is that eligibility is a matter of law decided judically. Courts can and have removed ineligible persons.
The remainder of your post amounts to "Oh bosh", which doesn't address a single point raised.