You’re ignoring my post to you. The Constitution specifically gives Congress the responsibiltiy of determining eligibility of elected CONGRESS members, but where does it similarly give Congress that authority for a PRESIDENT?
The certification of the electoral vote is certification that each state’s electoral votes was duly counted and the final result was such-and-so.
Here are the direct words of the 12th Amendment pertaining to this: “The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice President... and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate; - The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted; - The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed”
The 20th Amendment says that a President elect who has failed to qualify as of the start of the term shall not “act as President”. A person cannot be President elect without having the required majority of electoral votes, so the failure to qualify cannot be because they didn’t have enough electoral votes. As long as they have those they are to be President. But they cannot ACT as President if they are disqualified. The QUALIFICATIONS to be President are thus independent of the electoral vote that CHOSE one as President. The QUALIFICATIONS are that they be a natural born US citizen, at least 35 years old, and have resided in the US for at least 14 years.
Nowhere in either the Constitution or its 12th or 20th Amendments is Congress given the responsibility to determine whether the President elect has QUALIFIED. In order for it to be a political question, as you have claimed, the Constitution has to specifically say that a political body is tasked with the job. The Constitution specifically tasked Congress to determine eligibility of its members. Where does it similarly task Congress with determining the eligibility of the President? If it doesn’t say it, it doesn’t do it, and this CANNOT be a “political question”.
All cases and controversies resulting from the Constitution are automatically the responsibility of the judicial branch unless the Constitution specifically gives the task to somebody else. So unless you can come up with specific words where the Constitution gives the task to somebody else, the judiciary is the proper place for the qualifications of the President elect to be decided.
From that page the first question is;
Question: What happens if the President-elect fails to qualify before inauguration?
Answer:
If the President-elect fails to qualify before inauguration, Section 3 of the 20th Amendment states that the Vice President-elect will act as President until such a time as a President has qualified.Then further down on that page is another question.
Question: Who verifies if a candidate is qualified to run for President?
Answer:
The Office of the Federal Register at the National Archives and Records Administration administers the Electoral College process, which takes place after the November general election. The Office of the Federal Register does not have the authority to handle issues related to the general election, such as candidate qualifications. People interested in this issue may wish to contact their state election officials or their Congressional Representatives.
In light of this answer I emailed the contact for that page the following.
From: Greg XXXXXXXI think there should be transcripts of some past joint sessions where eligibility is discussed. IE Chester Arthur for instance or maybe perhaps President number 10, John Tyler, who was one of the first NBC Presidents.
Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2013 3:23 PM
To: 'electoral_college@nara.gov'
Subject: US Code 3On this page "Previous Questions of The Week." here http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/previous_questions.html
There are two questions I would like to address, the First one is "What happens if the President-elect fails to qualify before inauguration?" And the answer is correct as it states the process described in the 20th amendment and US Code 3 Sec 19. US Code 3 describes the process of counting the electoral vote for President and Vice President during a joint session of congress.
Then a subsequent question "Who verifies if a candidate is qualified to run for President?" That answer is not very specific. You mention the Office of Federal Register at the National Archives but go on to state it is a states issue. Well in section 11 we see the first mention of the Archivist. But there are three other copies of the certificates, one set being delivered to the President of the Senate. Then is section 15 we see that two tellers from each house previously selected and are handed the certificates for opening and are dealt with in an alphabetical order. It goes on to explain and clarify the counting process.
The word qualify does not appear until section 19 when it mentions the President "elect." This is because we have determined who the President and Vice President elect are. That is the point where qualifications are to be handled. In fact section 19 describes every different situation where someone other than the President elect would assume to act as President and in each case it also declares that that person needs to be "qualified". It is mentioned "nine" times! Now how can one think that any other person or body be responsible for seeing that in these different situations involving the qualification of the President and Vice President elect, or any of the other situation listed, be handled by but Congress?
Eligibility of the President is a political question in that a majority of Electoral College voters can elect anyone, even a person that is ineligible. At the state level, voters are voting for the electors and not the specific candidates. You are right in that Congress can only affirm or deny the counted votes and not the eligibility of the candidates.
SCOTUS has repeatedly opined the natural born citizenship requirement is undefined and not specific, affirming eligibility to be a political question with respect to an election and swearing in.
Eligibility becomes a matter for adjudication when a person claims a usurper has caused them specific and a particular harm when the usurper sign a law or executive order which impacted the complainant directly, i.e. a plaintiff was sent notice he/she must pay a fine for not obtaining health insurance after the ACA was signed by Obama. The plaintiff will have standing to object to a usurper directly and negatively impacting their life with a law signed by the usurper. After standing is established, the usurper will have to prove eligibility or the plaintiff will absolved of paying any fines or penalties.
A plaintiff with standing cannot have a usurper removed from office because a majority have voted to put the usurper in office. Each person, individually, must object to the usurper after they have suffered a particular harm or threat of harm due to the actions of the usurper.
Waivers run the clock out for the usurper until he leaves office. No one person with a waiver of fines or penalties has standing to sue the usurper. Once the usurper leaves office, the DeFacto Officer Doctrine indemnifies the U.S.Government. The laws of the usurper cannot be challenged by the fact a person objects to a usurper imposing fines or penalties on them after the usurper leaves office.
I’m not ignoring your question. You just keep answering it yourself. Congress certifies the election. <-— that’s a period.
the Constitution has to specifically say that a political body is tasked with the job.
Okay, point out where SCOTUS is given this specific task?
So it's a political process because only Congress can impeach or ostensibly through impeachment de-certify the election. As an individual, or even as a minority group, you do not have the jurisdiction, standing, nor the right to declare Obama not eligible. Any argument from you declarying it so is pretty well much invalid. Which is why this hasn't gained any traction while looking for a judicial remedy. None exists.