I think what you’re suggesting is that our constitutional republic had no inspiration by historical example, contemorary example or literature espousing and detailing that form of governance, that it just sprung out of feudal allegiance to a lord or king whole and somehow unchanged, which is ludicrous.
One is led to wonder just what the heck that whole Revolution thingie was all about, let alone the War Of 1812, from attempting to read your replies here.
You’re attempting to cheerlead for a particular outcome while having no grasp at all of the subject matter, and are not helping other, more informed individuals with whom you apparently agree but don’t quite know why.
Maybe you should just let those who have bothered themselves to study the matter hash it out, and you can just post monosyllabic replies of emotional support whenever the mood hits you.
The Constitution provides that a president must be 35 years old, must have been a resident of the US for 14 years and must be a NBC. Thus, voters and their electors cannot choose just anyone they want. Their choices must conform to the constitutional provisions mentioned. They must choose a candidate who is 35, who has been a resident for 14 years and who is a NBC. They are constitutionally charged with the obligation to apply these standards to candidates and to resolve questions which arise in the process. Their decisions in that regard are final. No one is constitutionally empowered to reverse their decisions.
The framers of our Constitution did not provide elaborate definitions (how are the 14 years to be measured, how are the 35 years to be proved, etc.) of the terms they used. I assume that they provided the level of guidance that they wanted to provide. Maybe they couldn't agree on other details, maybe they didn't think greater detail was important, maybe they wanted the electors to provide more content to the provisions. Who knows why they stopped writing when they stopped writing? It's enough for our purposes to point out that they quit writing before they provided for any kind of candidate screening role to the Supreme Court. That is why the Supreme Court has never even hinted that it had the power to disqualify a presidential candidate.
Our Constitution also provides that a president can only be removed by the impeachment process and that the House of Representatives has the sole power of impeachment. There isn't any judicial shortcut to these provisions. The courts are not relevant to this process.