” I see Section II making the courts a reasonable after-the-fact locus for appeals, but I don’t see them listed specifically as a pre-election certifier of qualifications.”
Well no, not exactly. Sec 1 sets up the Courts. Sec. 2 gives those courts jurisdiction over all matters arising under the Constitution, which these challenges do.
“I don’t see them listed specifically as a pre-election certifier of qualifications.”
In fact, a challenge of the qualifications of a candidate for president ought to be brought prior to the election and brought in Federal District Court. That’s been the point of several of the standing decisions. The courts therefore are potentially the pre-election certifiers of qualifications IF someone wants to challenge. It is another matter to set up a mechanism whereby all candidates MUST be certified. The Constitution doesn’t require that but so far as I can see, Congress could certainly enact such a law so long as the qualifications were limited to those set forth in the Constitution.
I can see that we’re thinking along the same lines, but I still see the courts as a location for appeals rather than a tasked certifier of qualifications.
As an aside, what would give a person standing prior to an election, and what would give standing post-election? Would they be different?
I believe there were appeals prior to the election, and I do believe that standing was the issue.