I think you are wrong. The 12th Amendment states:
The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate; — The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted; — The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the PresidentThe 20th Amendment says:
If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.And Article I, Section 8, Clause 18 says:
[The Congress shall have Power] To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.I supposed I could quote the impeachment sections too. There really is no role for the Supreme Court except to decide controversies where the meaning of laws passed by the Congress and of the Constitution are in dispute. I know many have been brainwashed into thinking that the Court legitimately can decide anything it wants to decide but that clearly wasn't what the Framers had in mind.
ML/NJ
Congress can make a law regarding how a President shall be chosen if both the VP and President Elect are not qualified. And Congress can count the electoral votes. Both those things are specifically mentioned in the Constitution. But I don’t see anywhere in there that it gives Congress the authority to determine whether any specific President-elect HAS “failed to qualify”. It doesn’t give that job specifically to anybody.
And to even BE the “President elect” the candidate had to have had the electoral votes counted and met the necessary number of electoral votes. So the 20th Amendment in effect says that if a candidate made it through the entire Constitutional process (states’ electoral votes and the counting of such by Congress) and has STILL “failed to qualify”, then the VP elect shall “act as President” until a President shall have qualified. IOW, the provisions of the 20th Amendment are for those cases when somebody has made it through the entire process and has still “failed to qualify”.
It doesn’t specifically say who is to determine whether the “President elect” (who was already declared by Congress to be the electoral winner) has “failed to qualify”.
The judiciary is specifically given the duty of deciding all “controversies” arising out of the Constitution or the laws. That means if the Constitution doesn’t specifically say who is to determine/judge the issues of fact or law in cases involving the Constitution and a controversy arises over that issue, it is the judiciary’s job to decide the matter.
And that is the case with Presidential eligibility. The Constitution doesn’t specifically give the job of determining Presidential eligibility to any branch of government or any specific body. It would definitely be outside the expertise and authority of any other body to decide what the Constitutional term “natural born citizen” means. That is definitely an issue for the judiciary, since it involves INTERPRETING the language of the Constitution.
And SCOTUS has never decided that eligibility is outside their jurisdiction (as if it were a “political question” because the Constitution had delegated the duty to another branch of government). Instead, they have evaded their responsibility by claiming that there WERE NO “controversies” because none of the cases that came before them were worth their time.
The lower courts claimed there were no “cases” because nobody who brought a case had “standing”.
So the problem we’ve had stems around the refusal of SCOTUS to acknowledge that there is a “controversy” being brought before them.