“Political” issues are those over which the Constitution gives Congress express jurisdiction.
The 20th Amendment involves a “President elect” - which is somebody who has already made it past all the requirements, procedures, and input of the voters, the states, and Congress. There is thus no way that this issue could be under the jurisdiction of the voters, Congress or the states.
Once the voters, Congress, and the states have all had their input, the 20th Amendment STILL says that if the President elect “fails to qualify” they cannot act as President.
Who would enforce this? The interpretation of the Constitution is that nothing is in there that is unenforceable, so SOMEBODY has to be able to enforce this, AFTER the electoral winner has been declared by Congress. Whose Constitutional duty is it, to enforce this - that is, to overturn the outcome of an election by the expressed requirement of the 20th Amendment?
I should add that in the time between the certification of the electoral winner and the inauguration there is nobody who could have suffered particularized harm. This is a case where there could never be a “case”, using the current definition of “case”. This would HAVE to fall under the category of a “controversy”, which doesn’t have to involve particular individuals who suffered particularized harm above and beyond everybody else.
Who is supposed to decide non-political controversies regarding the meaning and enforcement of the US Constitution? To whom does the Constitution expressly assign that DUTY? Not option. DUTY.
Let me help out here. If the United States itself is to inaugurate/accept the authority and actions of the President elect, then this issue would specifically be a “controversy to which the United States shall be a party”, which Article III, Section 2 (paragraph 1) says the judicial Power extends to.
Paragraph 2 refers to “cases” in which a state shall be a party - and the 11th Amendment removes the possibility of this being a CITIZEN versus a state. So what the 2nd paragraph calls a “case” is in the 1st paragraph called a “controversy between 2 or more states”. The 2nd paragraph thus doesn’t distinguish between “cases” and “controversies”, but simply calls them all “cases”. And it says that “In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction.”
The President is presumably a “public Minister”, as is (for instance) a judge who would administer the oath of office of a President elect. If so, original jurisdiction belongs to the Supreme Court because it is a “controversy” to which the United States is a party and in which a “public Minister” is affected.
IOW, not only is this not appointed to Congress to handle (a “political question”), but it is a controversy expressly placed under the original jurisdiction of the SUPREME COURT. It is a “controversy” which involves the United States and there is nobody who even COULD HAVE suffered particularized harm so there is no way it could ever be a “case” between the electoral vote certification and Jan 20th.