I didn’t answer because I’ve answered them before.
Your answers are good. I disagree with #1 because there is no Plebiscite and voters do not determine de facto eligibility. They assume it through the process of party candidate selection, Secretary’s of states approving the candidate for their states ballots and on through election certification then oath of office.
Baker vs Carr pretty well much points the way the judicial branch will go — hands off, it’s Congresses job. Invoking the political doctrine question and leaving the issue where it belongs — in the political realm.
Eligibility is not a political question within the meaning of Baker v Carr, there is no separation of powers issue. The Judiciary has exclusive authority to determine questions of law.
When a case is brought a Court finds facts and applies law. Sometimes this results in elected officials being removed from office. For example, upon being convicted of a felony North Dakota Governor William Langer was removed from office. Likewise for Alabama Governor H. Guy Hunt.
Eligibility is a question of law & fact. The facts regarding an individual are discoverable. For example, a persons age and residency are discoverable facts.
North Dakota Governor Thomas H. Moodie was removed from office after the state Supreme Court determined he did not meet residency requirements specified in the North Dakota Constitution.
The law applicable to determining eligibility to the U.S. Presidency is U.S. Const. art. II, § 1. When a case is brought and a determination is made that a person does not meet residency requirements specified by the U.S. Const. that person is removed from office. Likewise for the other provisions: age, and “natural born citizen”.
I could have made clearer that by "election" I had in mind more the entire electoral process, including the things you mention. Voter affirmation is a key (but not the only) part of that. The results of that process are not easily overturned afterward either by judicial or congressional action. We may not have that much actual disagreement.
“I didn’t answer because I’ve answered them before.”
That doesn’t explain why you didn’t provide me with the link I asked for. It was a simple request. A six or seven-yo could have understood it. All you’ve done is dance desperately, wildly around, dodging the issue. If you don’t have a link, then admit you made a statement you can’t back up. Otherwise, how about the link? You’ve dissembled and obfuscated long enough; produce.