[DoodleDawg]

Again, you just ignore the fact that an election declared UNLAWFUL from fraud renders all candidates as unqualified and subject to a quo warranto motion ('... by what authority do you claim to be holder of the office?').

Declared unlawful by whom?

When the unlawfully seated Congress critters are removed, it won't take 67 votes any longer, will it?

Sure it will. Article I, Section 3.

[RideForever]

Declared unlawful by whom?

Once again, although you profess to have read the material, you don't seem to understand the plenary power environment of elections. Who do you think, OTHER THAN THE STATE LEGISLATURES, could declare an election UNLAWFUL due to fraud, and stay within the plenary powers given by the US Constitution. So let's dumb down, just for you. Your reference cites 2/3 of the Members present. That presumes that states that present Members-elect who are not qualified due to an UNLAWFUL election, DECLARED BY A STATE LEGISLATURE, is allowed to be seated in Congress, knowing they can be challenged by a quo warranto (by what authority?) motion. That leaves the possibility of fewer than 100 in the Senate, who has denied that representation in the past. And it gets dicey at this point; whether a Governor can appoint a Senator to an empty seat after an UNLAWFUL election is declared for that state. That is a legitimate question.