[mrsmith]

Where it says the Congress decides the election.
That also negates it entertaining any “quo warrento” challenge to the Congress and state’s determination.

I realize you hate the Constitution for not giving you what you want in this instance.

I just pity you for thinking you know better.

[MHGinTN]

Thanks for self-exposing your hate-filled self by your childish comment. Your posts will now be, frankly, ignored, little nettle.

[Dr. Franklin]

Where it says the Congress decides the election. That also negates it entertaining any “quo warrento” challenge to the Congress and state’s determination.

No, Congress certifies the election, in modern practice, based upon certifications by state governors as to who won each states presidential electors. The power to declare fraudulently certified winner of the electoral vote, through a writ of quo warranto is a judicial power given to the federal courts in Article III. Congress has no power to issue such a writ, since to do so, violates separation of powers.

I realize you hate the Constitution for not giving you what you want in this instance.

'Tis you who hate the Constitution for not being written in the Napoleonic Code style of France. Ours is common law tradition, and the judicial power in the constitution is dispensed with common sense. You also hate the Guarantee Clause of the constitution, which guarantees us a "Republican form of government". You leftists really hate that idea.

[RideForever]

From post 149 above

The court can determine the facts of the election, solely as to its LAWFULNESS. If criminal fraud is determined as a fact by the court, the election may be ruled UNLAWFUL, and NONE of the candidates on the ballots in question were elected or re-elected. The election didn't happen, the Electoral votes from that state are invalid, and the allegedly new holders of office cannot be deemed legitimate. As a result all their votes since their election are void as fraudulent. That includes the vote to confirm the Electoral votes.

Your statement that "That also negates it entertaining any “quo warrento” challenge to the Congress and state’s determination." is absurd, and I'm not even an attorney.