"But, judge, there is no reason for us to have to argue this case to the jury or for the jury to decide it. As you know, we submitted as evidence a film of the defendant confessing that he committed each element of the crime with which he is charged. He admitted that he is guilty. He has never even challenged the validity of the film. He is clearly guilty. We all know it. There is no need for argument and there is no need for a jury to waste its time deliberating. The court should just find him guilty so that we can get on with your sentencing. Why must we waste our time?"
The judge will then explain to the prosecutor something like this:
"The Sixth Amendment affords all of us a right to trial by jury. The Constitution commits to the jury and to the jury alone the decision as to guilt or innocence. I am just the judge. I have no power to substitute my judgment for the judgment of this jury. This is a question for the jury. If they choose to acquit this defendant, he is going home tonight."
Very reasonable people could agree with this prosecutor. Are we not risking the possibility that this jury will make the wrong decision and acquit this defendant? Why must we take this crazy risk that a crazy jury will not follow the instructions of the court? They might apply the standards incorrectly.
We take that risk because the Constitution requires that we take that risk. The Constitution requires that the jury and only the jury decide this question of guilt. Similarly, the Constitution requires that the Electors choose the President. Somebody has to make the decision and under our Constitution that job is assigned to the Electors.
That is the way I see it and I believe that the courts (particularly in the last eight years) have made it clear that they neither have nor want any role to play in reviewing the qualifications of candidates.
The Supreme Court would decide the case.