> the Constitution delegates to Electors the job of choosing the President
True, but ultimately irrelevant. The mode of election does not constrain the judiciary’s exclusive authority to try cases. No person is exempt from a judicial determination of ineligibility should a case be brought.
I do understand your argument. I just disagree with it. I have no difficulty with the notion that there are decisions made by constitutional actors that are not reviewable by courts.
The Sixth Amendment affords us with a right to trial by jury if we are charged with a serious crime. At the end of a trial, the judge instructs the jury and provides the jury with the law (the standards) that they are to apply in making their decision. The Constitution then entrusts the jury with the duty to apply that standard. If the jury comes back with an acquittal, the prosecutor and judge might very well wonder if the jury properly applied the standard to the facts of the case. But, neither the prosecutor nor the judge can set aside the acquittal even if they are certain that the jury failed to properly apply the standards provided to them. Now, that system might not make sense to some people because they know that juries can make errors in applying the standard or may not even understand the standard to mean what the judge or prosecutor believes the standard to mean. However, the Constitution entrusts the jury to make a, if the jury decides to acquit a defendant, that is the end of the matter.
Similarly, the Constitution entrusts Electors with the duty to choose a President. The Constitution provides some standards but entrusts the Electors with the duty to apply those standards and to choose a President who is eligible. Like any jury might decide a matter differently than you would decide the matter, the Electors might decide these questions differently than you would decide them. I can live with that. I have never believed that jurors are infallible. I have never believed that judges are infallible. I can live with the fact that Electors are not infallible.
I honestly do not know how anyone who has read and understands Roe v. Wade can convince themselves that judges will be any better than Electors at applying the natural born citizen standard when choosing a President. The folks who decided to guarantee us a right to trial by jury understood that judges do not necessarily possess any special aptitude for making important decisions. In fact, just ask any judge sometime. If he is honest with you, he will have plenty of tales to share with you.
No court in this country has ever disqualified any candidate for President and no court has ever claimed that it possesses the power to do so. I do not believe that the courts want any part of these decisions.