One of the reasons the judicial system is allowed to refuse a case is if it is a “political question”. The way that a case arising out of the Constitution is a “political question” is if the Constitution specifically gives the jurisdiction or responsibility to somebody else. That’s the specific legal definition of what a “political question” is, according to what I’ve read from lawyers.
I’m not making this stuff up. Ask a lawyer.
The question of whether Congress can require somebody to buy health insurance - who decides that? (Article III Sec 2 says: “The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority - to all cases....” (talks about different kinds of cases)
The question of whether a Senate candidate is eligible - who decides that? (Article I Sec 5 says, “Each House shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members...”)
The book that Bushpilot1 linked to also talks about that, saying how the terms used define what the jurisdiction is. The legislative branch makes laws. The judicial branch interprets and applies law and Constitution by making judgments in cases. The executive branch executes the laws. If something has to be INTERPRETED or a JUDGMENT given, that applies to the judiciary. It’s not rocket science.
Where does the Constitution ever say that Congress decides eligibility and elections issues for THE PRESIDENCY, as well as for their own members? Where is Congress ever specifically given a role (beyond counting the electoral votes and deciding a split vote) in the Presidential election at all?
“I’m not making this stuff up. Ask a lawyer.”
I’ve talked with a few lawyers about this matter. None of them agree with your lay-person’s assesment.