One problem with your scenario: According to the theory that Presidential qualifications can only be examined by Congress, there would never be a state challenge to Obama’s eligibility that would be justiciable, even if there was a person with standing (such as McCain, Palin, Romney, or Ryan). So there would be no basis for Congress members challenging electoral votes that could be based on a challenge in the courts.
And actually, the statute that codifies the procedures for certifying the electoral vote doesn’t make provision for challenges based on eligibility. The issues that are supposed to qualify electoral votes for a challenge are the integrity of the seal, the certification of the copies, and the state’s certification of the general election vote. Stuff like that.
These things are probably why the Congressional Research Service says that the Constitution MIGHT allow Congress to challenge eligibility.
But what was used by the WA judge and WA Supreme Court was the claim that STATES CAN’T deal with Presidential eligibility because ONLY CONGRESS can. And that is baloney, according to the CRS attorney. If this excuse hadn’t been used at the state level, we wouldn’t have to worry about what the Congress-critter politicians were willing or unwilling to do. It would have been handled at a more local level, where perhaps Obama would have been denied placement on a ballot and the stage would have been set for a judicial challenge by OBAMA, where standing was guaranteed and discovery mandated. That’s what we need. That’s what Obama refused to allow to happen. And that’s what folks like you are siding with the usurper on - and AGAINST what the CRS has been telling the Congress-critters this whole time.
IOW, the Congress-critters weren’t going to challenge Obama’s eligibility even if they wanted to, because the CRS had told them it was Constitutionally questionable whether they even COULD - because the states are supposed to govern their own elections. So folks like the CRS are saying, “Congress might not be able to do it. The states are the ones who are supposed to do it.” And folks like YOU TROLLS are saying, “States can’t do it; only Congress can.”
Classic talking out of both sides of the mouth so that both Congress and the states claim it’s somebody else’s job.
And the same thing happens with the judicial v legislative argument. We’ve all been taught in 7th-grade civics class that the judiciary is responsible for interpreting the Constitution. But now folks are saying Congress is supposed to do it. So we’ve got Congress saying (on the basis of the CRS memo) “We can’t do it; the courts have to interpret the Constitution.” And we’ve got folks like YOU TROLLS saying, “The courts can’t interpret the Constitution. The Constitution specifically gives that job to the political system - and specifically Congress.”
The people who are playing both ends against the middle IN BOTH ISSUES are YOU TROLLS. Your arguments don’t make sense, and they are contradicted by both the Constitution, the laws, and the CRS.
There is no “theory” that presidential qualifications can ONLY be examined by Congress. The fifty ballot challenges in 22 states plus DC that were adjudicated during the 2012 election cycle prove that. It isn’t an “either/or” it’s a “both.”
Your specific question was who has the power to enforce the provisions of President-elect qualifying under the 20th Amendment. I say that is Congress but until we have an actual test case, we won’t know for certain.
The judicial branch has always ruled on who is eligible to be on a state’s ballot.
There isn’t any limit on the issues that objectors to the certification of the electors can raise. The last actual objection to certification of the electoral vote by members of Congress was submitted by Congresswoman Stephanie Tubbs Jones of Ohio and Senator Barbara Boxer of California who objected to the certification of George W, Bush’s Ohio electors in January of 2005 on the grounds that the electors were not “regularly given” due to problems with long lines at voting stations and prospective voters leaving without voting. The Tubbs Jones-Boxer objection also referenced the on-going lawsuits challenging the accuracy of the vote count in Ohio which is analogous to the current on-going lawsuits challenging whether Barack Obama has qualified as a natural born citizen.