Replies

Thanks for proving me right. You’re showing that the electors DON’T ratify eligibility. Objections filed in Congress are in relation to the counting of electoral votes and that “no electoral vote or votes from any State which shall have been regularly given by electors whose appointment has been lawfully certified to according to section 6 of this title.” This means Congress might theoretically ratify the eligility of electors but not the president-elect. This process doesn’t specifically address objections to presidential eligibility or qualifications.

No, I said nothing even remotely akin to electors having any impact at all on determining eligibility.
If a president-elect’s electors are invalidated in enough states, that person might not have enough electoral votes to win the 270 needed to be declared duly elected.
That is why the strategy in the Ankeny v The Governor of Indiana lawsuit was aimed at invalidating Indiana’s Obama electors who were won through Obama’s popular votes in that state on the grounds that Obama was an ineligible candidate because he did not have two American citizen parents.

Objections at the Joint Session of Congress can be lodged for any reason that any member of Congress wishes. Here’s a link to the video of Congresswoman Stephanie Tubbs-Jones lodging an objection to the certification of George W. Bush’s electors from Ohio due to alledged voting irregularities. Senator Barbara Boxer was her Senate objector. The electoral college vote was suspended while both Houses retired to their chambers, considered the objections, rejected them, and returned to the certification process.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bdA1skqD0TY

And what in the world is “eligility”? (sic). See? Even Edge’s can post typos every once in a while! ;-)