[butterdezillion]

The Constitution is right. All I’m asking anybody to do is follow it.

You already said you didn’t know who is supposed to stop an unqualified President elect from “acting as President” at noon on Jan 20th. It can’t be Congress; they are already done with their Constitutionally-prescribed part in the process, as are the voters. Because the Constitution does NOT give the job specifically to the political process and because the timing of it means it CANNOT fall within the described political process, it falls within the normal workings of the Constitution’s definitions. Specifically, it is the job of the JUDICIARY to settle cases and controversies regarding what is in the Constitution.

It does not fall to Congress - CANNOT fall to Congress, according to the 20th Amendment - and this WA judge is DEAD WRONG. The sanctions are because the judges, justices, AG, and SOS all KNOW they are dead wrong, and want to scare Jordan and anybody else away from thinking that they have any means of redress. It’s thuggery, pure and simple.

[BigGuy22]

"You already said you didn’t know who is supposed to stop an unqualified President elect from “acting as President” at noon on Jan 20th."
__

That's right.

But keep in mind, you are confusing two separate questions. The one you are raising is "who is supposed to stop an unqualified President elect"; and if a President-elect were found to be unqualified, that question would have to be addressed.

But notice that what the Amendment says is, "if the President elect shall have failed to qualify..." (emphasis added)

In other words, the Amendment only kicks in once the determination of ineligibility is made.

So, your tortured logic concerning who has the power to stop an unqualified president is irrelevant to the question of who has the power to make that determination -- and, according to the Constitution, that power belongs to the voters and to the Congress.

Your argument that the Courts are mandated to get involved falls short all around.