OK. I was mistaken; it doesn’t say the process has to take place within the day. It gives no deadline. And actually if I had been thinking straight I would have realized that the 20th Amendment provides for the possibility that Congress may not have decided who the electoral winner was by Jan 20th, so that obviously shows the process can take a long time.
As you say, if nobody can review and enforce the Constitutional requirements, those requirements are moot. That seems to be what the after-birthers claim: that the requirements are moot because the Constitution never says who enforces them, by what standard, or how. If the requirement is in the Constitution, the authors of the Constitution obviously believed they gave somebody the authority to enforce it.
My inclination is to believe they thought the judiciary was given that responsibility, since the judiciary is to settle all cases arising from the Constitution or laws. It could be that Congress has the right to bring up objections - which would be one way for a “case” to arise, with the judiciary ultimately deciding that case.
So maybe it’s both. Maybe Congress has the ability to contest the electoral vote by bringing a case. But I don’t think that means that Congress is the ONLY entity which can bring a case, or that Congress can ultimately decide the case.
Does that make sense?
Yes, it does. Both Congress and the Courts have a tendency to point fingers at each other when it comes to responsibility, accountability, etc.
The Courts say "It's up to Congress," and Congress saying "We are powerless, it's a constitutional/legal question."
I got to wondering about the responsibility of the Chief Justice, who is called on to administer the oath of office. Obviously, he too has no objection to a president having dual citizenship and potentially split allegiance.
My bottom line is that any member of Congress who had no objection to seating a dual citizen is unqualified for Congress. Throw all the bums out. Not one, not ONE good one, in the whole bunch.